HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 11-04; QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE; FOUNDATION REPORT; 2014-08-21FOUNDATION REPORT
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
193 THE CORKY MCMILLIN COMPANIES
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
1
AUGUST 21, 2014
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
Project No. 07135-42-04A
August 21, 2014
The Corky McMillin Companies
2750 Womble Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92106
Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell
Subject: FOUNDATION REPORT
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA -
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
In accordance with your request, we herein submit our Foundation Report (FR) for the proposed
Quarry Creek Bridge located in Carlsbad, California. The accompanying report presents the findings
and conclusions from our study.
If you have any questions regarding this FR, or if we may be of further Service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Yong Wang
GE 2775 4.
No2775UJ J
YW:AS:RCM:dmc
4i adr
•__
/' RoiMey C. Mikesell
CEG 1778 E 2533
9L No 7M
CEWFIED
OESS,o
ALI
ENGUEENG
0, GEOLOGIff
1*)
OFC
(2) Addressee
(e-mail) T. Y. Lin International
Attention: Mr. Jay Holombo
6960 Flanders Drive 0 San Diego, California 92121-2974 0 Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................
SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................. . ................................................................. I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................2
3.1 Background and Site Description................................................................................................2
3.2 Existing Structures......................................................................................................................2
3.3 Proposed Structure......................................................................................................................2
3.4 Pertinent Project Information ................................................. . .................................................... 3
EXCEPTION TO POLICY...................................................................................................................3
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM....................................................................3
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM.............................................................................................5
SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................5
7.1 Topography and Geology...........................................................................................................5
7.2 Types of Soil and Rock...............................................................................................................6
7.2.1 Compacted Fill (Qcf).....................................................................................................6
7.2.2 Alluvium (Qal)...............................................................................................................7
7.2.3 Santiago Formation (Ts)................................................................................................7
7.3 Salto Intrusive (Jspi)...................................................................................................................7
7.4 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards..........................................................................7
7.3.1 Landslides......................................................................................................................8
7.3.2 Embankment Failures....................................................................................................8
7.3.3 Ground Subsidence........................................................................................................8
7.3.4 Expansive Soils..............................................................................................................8
7.3.5 Collapsible Soils............................................................................................................8
7.4 Depth to the Bedrock..................................................................................................................9
7.5 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................9
SCOUR EVALUATION.......................................................................................................................9
CORROSION EVALUATION.............................................................................................................9
SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................10
10.1 Seismic Ground Motion and Design Response Spectrum ........................................................10
10.2 Liquefaction Potential...............................................................................................................11
10.3 Surface Fault Rupture Potential................................................................................................12
10.4 Seismic Induced Settlement......................................................................................................12
10.5 Lateral Spreading......................................................................................................................12
10.6 Tsunami ....................................................................................................................................12
10.7 Seismic Slope Instability ..........................................................................................................13
II. AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA ...................................................................................................13
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .13
12.1 Shallow Foundations.................................................................................................................15
12.2 Deep Foundations .................................. . ............................................ . ...................................... 16
12.2.1 Special Considerations for Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Piles with Rock Socket..................19
12.2.2 Special Considerations for Driven Piles......................................................................19
12.3 Retaining Walls/Wingwalls ....................................................................................................... 19
12.4 Wall Backfill and Approach Fill Earthwork.............................................................................20
12.4.1 Additional Considerations...........................................................................................20
GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER.................................................................................................21
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................21
DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION..........................................................................21
CLOSURE...........................................................................................................................................22
16.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review ....................................................................................... 22
16.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions ...............................................................................22
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................23
FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan/Geologic Map
Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4, Geologic Cross Section A-A'
Figure 5, Geologic Cross Section B-B'
Figure 6, Regional Fault Map
Figure 7, Recommended Design Response Spectrum
TABLES
Table5, Summary of Borings...............................................................................................................4
Table 7.2, Generalized Stratigraphy and Supporting Characteristics for Bridge..................................6
Table 9. 1, Soil Corrosion Test Summary ............... . ............................................................................ 10
Table10. 1, Fault Information .............................................................................................................11
Table 12. 1, Foundation Design Data Sheet for CIDH Piles................................................................14
Table 12.2, Foundation Factored Design Loads for CIDH Piles ........................................................14
Table 12.3, Foundation Design Data Sheet for Spread Footings........................................................14
Table 12.1.1, Foundation Design Recommendations for Spread Footings.........................................15
Table 12.1.2, Recommended Spread Footing Data Table .................................................................... 15
Table 12.2.1, Foundation Recommendations for CIDH Piles.............................................................16
Table 12.2.2, Recommended Pile Data Table ...................................................................................... 17
Table 12.2.4, Recommended Soil Parameters For Lpile Analysis (Abut I).......................................17
Table 12.2.5, Recommended Soil Parameters For Lpile Analysis (Pier 2).........................................18
Table 12.2.6, Recommended Soil Parameters For Lpile Analysis (Abut I - Liquefaction) ...............18
Table 12.2.7, Recommended Soil Parameters For Lpile Analysis (Pier 2 - Liquefaction).................18
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Table A-I, Summary of Borings
Boring Records
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory In Situ Moisture Content and Dry Density
Table B-lI, Summary of Laboratory Grain Size Distribution Test Results
Table B-Ill, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and Resistivity Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-VI, Summary of Laboratory Chloride Content Test Results
Table B-Vu, Summary of Laboratory Sand Equivalent Test Results
Table B-VIII, Summary of Laboratory Unconfined Compressive Test Results
Table B-IX, Summary of Laboratory Plasticity Index Test Results
Table B-X, Summary of Laboratory Uniaxial Compressive Strength Test Results
Figure B-i, Gradation Curve
APPENDIX C
LOG OF TEST BORINGS
APPENDIX D
ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS
FOUNDATION REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
This Foundation Report (FR) presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed
Quarry Creek Bridge located in Carlsbad, California. The approximate site location is depicted on the
Vicinity Map, Figure 1. This FR is based on a geotechnical investigation performed by Geocon
Incorporated. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate general subsurface geologic and
geotechnical conditions along the proposed bridge widening alignment, and to provide geotechnical
recommendations for use in preparing project plans and specifications.
The recommendations presented herein are based on our analyses of the data obtained from exploratory
borings, laboratory test results, engineering analyses, and our experience with similar soil and geologic
conditions. The Boring Records, laboratory test results, Log of Test Borings (LOTB) sheets in Caltrans
format, and analyses and calculations are presented as Appendices A, B, C, and D, respectively.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work included:
Reviewing published geologic maps, aerial photographs, project plans, in-house documents,
and other literature pertaining to the site to aid in evaluating geologic conditions and hazards
that may be present.
Reviewing currently available project plans and information regarding the bridge foundations
and proposed improvements.
Performing a field reconnaissance to note the existing conditions of the project site and
surrounding areas.
Drilling/coring 9 small-diameter borings along the proposed bridge alignment to a maximum
depth of 66 feet below grade to examine and sample the prevailing soil/rock conditions.
Performing laboratory tests on soil samples to evaluate dry density, moisture content, pH,
resistivity, soluble-sulfate content, chloride-ion content; grain size distribution, plasticity,
shear strength, sand equivalent, and unconfined compressive strength characteristics of the
prevailing soils. The uniaxial compressive strength tests were also performed on collected
rock core samples.
Performing engineering analyses to evaluate liquefaction and lateral spreading potential,
seismic design criteria, and foundation design criteria.
Preparing this FR in general accordance with Calirans' Foundation Report Preparation for
Bridge Foundations, December 2009.
Project No. 07135-42-04A - I - August 21. 2014
This FR supersedes the Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) for the Quarry Creek Bridge, Carlsbad,
California, prepared by Geocon incorporated, dated March 12, 2014.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Background and Site Description
The project site is located within the former Hanson Aggregates Quarry Creek materials plant south
of State Route 78 (SR 78) in 'Carlsbad, California. Specifically, the location of the site is
approximately 0.2 miles south of SR 78 and 0.5 miles west of College Boulevard as shown on
Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The approximate site coordinates are 33.178772° (latitude) and -117.302637°
(longitude).
Geocon Incorporated has provided geotechnical engineering and compaction testing and observation
services during reclamation grading for the former Hanson aggregate mining quarry. A summary of
observations and compaction test results, as well as an as-graded geologic map are provided in
Geocon's report titled Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading,
Quarry Creek, Carlsbad, California, dated April 4, 2013 (Project No. 07135-42-02). In general, the
approximately 100-acre property was recently sheet graded as part of the reclamation plan for Quarry
Creek Aggregate production plant. In addition to removal and recompaction of the unsuitable soils,
several drop structures were constructed within the Buena Vista Creek drainage and a FEMA Levee
and berm slopes were constructed along the north bank of Buena Vista Creek. Grading has resulted in
construction of large sheet-graded areas or superpads both north and south of Buena Vista Creek.
3.2 Existing Structures
No bridge structure currently exists at the subject site.
3.3 Proposed Structure
Information regarding the proposed bridge is obtained following a review of the currently available
bridge design loads and the preliminary project plan titled: Quarry Creek Bridge Foundation Plan
(65% Unchecked Details), prepared by T. Y. Lin International, received on August 20. 2014. We
understand that the proposed bridge consists of a 3-span structure extending approximately 285 feet
in length and approximately 46 feet in width. Piers will be located outside a 150-foot limit of the
Buena Vista Creek drainage area. The Site Plan/Geologic Map, Figure 2, shows the planned
improvements based on the project plan prepared by T. Y. Lin International together with the
locations of our exploratory borings.
Project No, 07135-42-04A -2 - August 21, 2014
3.4 Pertinent Project Information
We reviewed the following engineering documents related to the project:
Update Geotechnical Investigation, Amended Reclamation Plan, Quarry Creek, Refined
Alternative 3, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 10,
2009 (Project No. 07135-42-01).
Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek,
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 4, 2013 (Project
No. 07135-42-02).
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek II, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California,
prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated May 11, 2012 (Project No. 07135-42-03).
Preliminary Foundation Report, Quarry Creek Bridge, prepared by Geocon Incorporated,
dated March 12, 2014 (Project No. 07135-42-04).
Preliminary Foundation Plan, Quarry Creek Bridge (65% Unchecked Details), prepared by
T.Y. Lin International, received on August 20, 2014.
Bridge Design Loads, prepared by T.Y. Lin International, received on August 5 and 20, 2014.
4. EXCEPTION TO POLICY
Unless otherwise stated in this FR, the study performed and preliminary recommendations provided
for the proposed bridge widening are in conformance with Caltrans' current policy.
5. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM
The field investigation for the FR was performed between June 18 and July 2, 2014, and consisted of
a site reconnaissance and drilling/coring 9 small-diameter borings near the approximate locations of
proposed foundations as depicted on the Site Plan/Geologic Map, Figure 2. Table 5 is a summary of
the boring information including the proposed structures, boring locations, surface elevations, and
boring depths.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -3 - August 21, 2014
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF BORINGS
Boring
No.
Approximate Boring Location
Boring
Depth (feet) Proposed
Structure
Station No.
"Street B" Centerline
Offset
(feet)
Elevation
(feet)
R-14-001 Abut I 8+27 Lt24 96 39.5
R-14-002 Abut 1 8+27 Rt 24 96 42
A-14-009 Abut 1 8+04 Rt 8 104 66
A-14-003 Pier 2 8+77.5 Lt 23.5 77 22
A-14-004 Pier 8+77.5 Rt23.5 77 26
A-14-005 Pier 3 10+61.5 Lt 23.5 77 8.5
A-14-006 Pier 3 10+61.5 Rt23.5 77 16
R-14-007 Abut 4 11+12 Lt24 95 18
R-14-008 Abut 11+12 Rt24 93 15.5
Borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 8.5 to 66 feet below ground surface
using two different drill rigs. Boring A-14-009 was drilled/cored using a truck-mounted drill rig
(Dietrich-120). All other borings were drilled/cored using an all-terrain (ATC) drill rig. These two
drill rigs were both equipped with 8-inch-diameter, continuous hollow-stem augers, a 4-inch diameter
rotary wash tn-cone bit, and approximately 4-inch diamond coring bit. Specifically, R-14-001, R-14-
002, R-14-007, and R-14-008 were rotary wash borings and rock core borings; A-14-009 was
combination of hollow-stem and rock coring; and A-14-003 through A-14-006 were hollow-stem
borings. The average hammer energy efficiencies for ATC and Dietrich-120 rigs are about 78.8 and
80.2 percent, respectively.
In-situ testing and sampling during drilling were performed in general conformance with current
Caltrans' Soil and Rock Logging, Classification and Presentation Manual. Soil samples were
collected from near the ground surface and at approximately 5-foot intervals to the total depths
explored. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving an approximately 3-inch outside
diameter (OD) split-spoon sampler (modified California sampler) into the "undisturbed" soil mass
with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler was equipped with 6-inch-long
by 2Y2-inch-diameter brass sample tubes to facilitate sample removal and laboratory testing. Standard
Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed by driving a 2-inch OD split-spoon sampler 18 inches in
general conformance with ASTM D1586. The number of blows required to drive the sampler (blow
counts) the last 12 inches of the 18 sample drive (or portion thereof) are reported on the Boring
Records and the LOTB sheets included in Appendices A and C.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -4- August 21, 2014
6. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
We performed laboratory tests in general conformance with California Test Methods (CTM) and
generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). We
performed the following tests:
In-Place Dry Density and Moisture Content: ASTM D 2937 (CTM 226)
Grain Size Distribution/Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve: ASTM D 422 (CTM 202 and 203)
. Direct Shear: ASTM D 3080
pH and Resistivity: CTM 643
Sulfate Content: CTM 417
Chloride Content: CTM 422
Plasticity Index: ASTM D 4318 (CTM 204)
Sand Equivalent: ASTM D 2419 (CTM 217)
Unconfined Compressive Strength: ASTM D 2166
Uniaxial Compressive Strength: ASTM D 7012
Test results are presented in Appendix B of this report.
7. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
7.1 Topography and Geology
The area surrounding the proposed bridge site generally consists of recently sheet-graded pads to the
north and the south, and Buena Vista Creek to the east and west. North and south facing embankment
slopes were constructed along each side of the creek as part of the grading operation. The slopes have
an inclination of approximately 2.511: lv (horizontal:vertical). Existing surface elevations in the area
of the planned bridge range from a high of approximately 105 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL)
near the tops of the embankment slopes to a low of approximately 74 feet above MSL at the Buena
Vista Creek channel.
A Regional Geologic Map is presented as Figure 3. The site and near vicinity are located in an area
underlain by late Holocene alluvial flood plain deposits and middle Eocene Santiago Formation, as
mapped by M. P. Kennedy and S. S. Tan (2005). However, due to extensive mining operations at the
site and subsequent reclamation grading, majority of the Santiago Formation has been removed and
the area is covered with compacted fill.
Based on the results of our field investigation and the referenced grading report, a thickness of up to
approximately 30 feet of compacted fill was placed to achieve finish grades to construct the creek
embankment slopes and graded pads near the bridge alignment.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -5 - August 21, 2014
7.2 Types of Soil and Rock
Based on the results of our field investigation, the area planned to receive the proposed bridge is
generally underlain by compacted fill, alluvium, Santiago Formation, and igneous rock associated
with the Salto Intrusive. Two geologic cross-sections A-A' and B-B' along the proposed bridge
alignment are presented on Figures 4 and 5. The generalized stratigraphy and supporting
characteristics of the subsurface materials near the proposed• bridge footings are summarized in
Table 7.2. The soil and rock conditions encountered are described in detail below and on the Boring
Records and the LOTB sheets presented in Appendices A and C, respectively.
TABLE 7.2
GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHY AND SUPPORTING CHARACTERISTICS FOR BRIDGE
Widening
Footing Generalized Stratigraphy Support
Characteristics
Abut I
Compacted fill above approx. El. 76 feet Incompetent
Alluvium between approx. El. 76 feet and 58 feet Incompetent
Salto Intrusive below approx. El. 58 feet Very competent
Pier 2
Compacted fill above approx. El. 76 feet Incompetent
Alluvium between approx. El. 76 feet and 56 feet (left) or 52 feet (right) Incompetent
Salto Intrusive below approx. El. 56 feet (left) or 52 feet (right) Very competent
Pier 3
Compacted fill above approx. El. 69 feet Incompetent
Salto Intrusive below approx. El. 69 feet Very competent
Abut Compacted fill above approx. El. 85 feet (left) or 80 feet (right) Incompetent
Salto Intrusive below approx. El. 85 feet (left) or 80 feet (right) Very competent
7.2.1 Compacted Fill (Qcf)
Compacted fill exists north and south of Buena Vista Creek on the existing embankment slopes and
graded pads. Fill soils derived from on-site excavations or import sources were placed and compacted
in layers until the design elevations were attained. Approximately 8 to 30 feet of compacted fill were
encountered in our borings drilled along the proposed bridge alignment.
As encountered in all borings, the compacted fill generally consist of medium dense, moist, dark
brown silty sand and clayey sand. The bridge abutments were surveyed during grading and the
majority of rock fill was placed outside of bridge abutment areas. However, some rock could exist in
the fill.
For excavation purposes, the compacted fill can be considered a Cal-OSHA Type B soil where water
is not freely seeping and should be considered a Type C soil if water is freely seeping. All
Project No. 07135-42-04A -6- August 21. 2014
excavations and trenches should be properly maintained and/or shored in accordance with applicable
OSHA rules and regulations for the safety and stability of adjacent existing improvements.
7.2.2 Alluvium (Qal)
Alluvial deposits exist along the Buena Vista Creek channel bed and underlie the compacted fill north
of the Buena Vista Creek. We expect the thickness of the alluvium to be at least 20 feet, below the
creek channel. Approximately 18 and 24 feet of alluvium were encountered in our Borings drilled at
the proposed Abutment I and Pier 2, respectively. The materials generally consist of soft to stiff wet,
dark grayish brown lean clay to sandy lean clay and silty sand.
For excavation purposes, the alluvium can be considered a Cal-OSHA Type C. All excavations and
trenches should be properly maintained and/or shored in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and
regulations for the safety and stability of adjacent existing improvements.
7.2.3 Santiago Formation (Ts)
Adjacent to the proposed Abutment 1, we encountered Santiago Formation in Borings A-14-009,
between alluvium and the bedrock. The Santiago Formation is characterized by very dense, moist
light greenish gray, weakly cemented silty sandstone.
For excavation purposes, the Santiago Formation can be considered a Cal-OSHA Type A soil where
water is not freely seeping and should be considered a Type B soil if water is freely seeping. All
excavations and trenches should be properly maintained and/or shored in accordance with applicable
OSHA rules and regulations for the safety and stability of adjacent existing improvements.
7.3 Salto Intrusive (Jspi)
The Jurassic-aged Salto Intrusive consists of a steeply jointed, light gray, very strong tonalite to very
dark gray gabbro rock considered to be older than the Peninsular Range Batholith and more closely
related to the formation of the Santiago Peak Volcanics. This granitoid bedrock unit is the present
below the surficial soil in all borings and is the predominant geologic unit that has been mined for
aggregate on the property. Exploratory excavations encountered the intrusive rock that exhibited a
variable weathering pattern ranging from intensely weathered and fractured to moderately weathered,
strong crystalline rock.
7.4 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards
The following sections discuss other potential geologic hazards evaluated for the project including
landslides, embankment failures, ground subsidence, expansive soils, and collapsible soils.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -7- August 21, 2014
7.4.1 Landslides
Review of the 1995 published regional landslide maps of the California Geological Survey (formerly
the Division of Mines and Geology) suggested the presence of a suspected landslide west of the
bridge area and in the natural hillside southwest of the bridge. However, observations of intact
outcrops and confirmation of undisturbed slope conditions during our previous field investigation
suggest that the suspected landslides do not exist. Geocon evaluated the landslide areas during a
recent investigation for the overall Quarry Creek II project by geologic mapping and excavation of
exploratory trenches and large diameter borings. The exploratory excavations encountered intact
medium-dense, massive to horizontally-bedded Terrace Deposits. Based on the exploratory
excavation data and exposed outcrops, the previously suspected landslides do not exist and landslides
are not considered to be a hazard to this project.
Several suspicious surficial landslides are mapped along the south bank of the creek several hundred
feet west of the site. These potential landslides should not impact the proposed bridge.
7.4.2 Embankment Failures
No embankment failures were observed during our field investigation.
7.4.3 Ground Subsidence
Ground subsidence occurs where underlying loose geologic units undergo a densification process.
Subsidence can result from the extraction of mineral resources and/or groundwater, as well as the
rapid settlement induced by seismic activity. The potential for ground subsidence is considered very
low at the site.
7.4.4 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils possess a high swelling or shrinking potential due to change in moisture content. The
common materials associated with high expansion potential are clays. Based on laboratory testing
performed during previous grading, portions of the existing fills are considered to have low to high
expansion potential.
Proposed foundations will be supported on bedrock with a very low expansion potential. Thus, the
potential for expansive soils to affect the proposed foundations is considered low.
7.4.5 Collapsible Soils
Collapsing soils are unsaturated soils that undergo a large volume change upon saturation, even
without increase in external loads. Soils that generally display collapsible potential are. porous and
Project No. 07135-42-04A - S - August 21, 2014
low dry density. Generally no porous or honeycomb structure was encountered in our borings
drilled along the proposed bridge alignment. Thus, the potential for collapsible soils on site is
considered low.
7.5 Depth to the Bedrock
The depth to bedrock is likely to vary along the project alignment, from approximately 13 feet below
the surface south of the creek channel to approximately 46 feet below the graded pad north of the
creek channel.
7.6 Groundwater
Based on the referenced update geotechnical investigation prepared by Geocon Incorporated,
groundwater was encountered in the lower elevation drainage areas of Buena Vista Creek and, its
tributaries at depths translating to elevations between 70 and 80 feet MSL in 2003 and 2006.
Groundwater is expected to be near the existing creek flow elevation. Additionally, seepage was
encountered along the bedrock contact along the south side of the creek. Several subsurface drains
were installed in the area east of the proposed bridge to intercept the seepage and outlet it to the
creek.
We encountered groundwater in our Borings A-14-003, A-14-004, A-14-005 and A-14-006 drilled
adjacent to the existing creek channel bed. Specifically, the encountered groundwater levels were at
approximately elevations of 67 and 71 feet (MSL) at the north and south of creek channel,
respectively.
8. SCOUR EVALUATION
The proposed Piers 2 and 3 are likely located within the Buena Vista Creek channel margins. Scour
evaluation of the project site should refer to project hydrology/hydraulic report.
The as-built riprap drop structures may have some influences on the general scour trends within the
creek channel. From a geotechnical standpoint, the appropriate footing elevations of the proposed
piers should be extended below the potential scour elevation.
9. CORROSION EVALUATION
According to Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Version 2.0, November 2012), a site is considered
corrosive to foundation elements if chloride concentration is 500 ppm or' greater, or sulfate
concentration is 2000 ppm or greater, or the pH is 5.5 or less. The potential of Hydrogen (pH),
resistivity, chlorides content, and soluble-sulfate content tests were performed on 3 samples selected
at random to generally evaluate the corrosion potential to subsurface structures. These tests were
Project No. 07135-42-04A -9- August 21, 2014
performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 643, 417, and 422. The results are
summarized in Table 9, which indicates that the site is not considered a corrosive environment in
accordance with Caltrans criteria.
TABLE 9
SOIL CORROSION TEST SUMMARY
Boring No./
Sample No.
Sample Depth
(feet)
Resistivity
(ohm centimeters) H Chloride
Content (ppm)
Sulfate
Content (ppm)
R-14-001/B1-1 0 820 7.5 230 420
A-14-0041B4-3 10 900 8.4 150 40
A-14-0051B5-2 5 590 7.8 100 100
Proposed improvements in contact with the ground should be designed and constructed in accordance
with the Caltrans Standard Specifications and good construction practices. Geocon does not practice in
the field of corrosion engineering. If corrosion sensitive improvements are planned, we recommend that
further evaluations by a corrosion engineer be performed to incorporate the necessary precautions to
avoid premature corrosion on corrosion sensitive structures in direct contact with the soils.
10. SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 Seismic Ground Motion and Design Response Spectrum
Seismic recommendations including seismic ground motion of the site and the design response
spectrum for the bridge widening were developed in accordance with Caltrans' Methodology for
Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations, November
2012. This procedure is based on Caltrans' current Seismic Design Criteria (Appendix B), ARS Online
Version 2 Report, 2012 Caltrans Fault Database Report (Version 2a), and USGS probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis. and tools. Site-specific information used in the procedure included the
latitude of 33.178772° and the longitude of-1 17.302637°.
Based on Caltrans' online fault map and accompanying reports, the site is located approximately
12.2 kilometers (7.6 miles) east of the Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) fault zone, and approximately
12.4 kilometers (7.7 miles) northeast of Rose Canyon fault zone (Oceanside section). Figure 6 is the
Regional Fault Map based on the Caltrans' online map. Key information of the faults is summarized
in Table 10 below.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -10- August 21, 2014
TABLE 10
FAULT INFORMATION
Fault Name Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) Rose Canyon Fault zone (Oceanside section)
Fault ID# 381 396
MMax 6.9 6.8
Fault Type SS SS
Fault Dip 900 900
Dip Direction Vertical Vertical
Top ofRupture 0km(0mi) 0km(0mi)
Bottom of Rupture 10 km (6.2 mi) 11 km (6.8 mi)
RRUP I2.2km(7.6mi) 12.4km(7.7mi)
Z10 N/A N/A
Z25 N/A N/A
The site is not located within a deep sedimentary basin in accordance with Caltrans' Seismic Design
Criteria, Appendix B. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings, the site is
underlain by fill soils and alluvial soils over igneous rock. A shear wave velocity, V 0 of 360 rn/sec is
considered appropriate for the soil profile (Type D).
Both the deterministic and probabilistic response spectrums of the site were estimated using Caltrans'
Deterministic Response Spectrum Spreadsheet, Probabilistic Response Spectrum Spreadsheet (after
USGS), 2008 Interactive Deaggregation Tool and the ARS Online web tool. The design response
spectrum is the upper envelop of the spectral values of deterministic response spectrum and the
probabilistic response spectrum. The peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) at the site is
estimated as 0.37g. The recommended design response spectrum is shown on Figure 7,
Recommended Design Response Spectrum.
10.2 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, and relatively cohesionless soil deposits
located beneath the groundwater table lose strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors
controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground accelerations, characteristics of the
subsurface soil, in situ stress conditions, and depth to groundwater. Our liquefaction assessments
indicate that some layers of the alluvial soils are susceptible to seismic liquefaction.
Project No. 0713542-04A - II - August 21.2014
10.3 Surface Fault Rupture Potential
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone as established by the State
Geologist around known active faults. Review of available literature and field reconnaissance
revealed no active fault trace through or near the site. The potential for surface fault rupture at the site
is considered very low.
10.4 Seismic Induced Settlement
As a result of strong ground motions, seismic induced settlement may be expected in areas underlain
by liquefiable soils, unconsolidated alluvial deposits, and/or loose granular soils. The potential for
seismic induced settlement at the site proposed for Quarry Creek Bridge was evaluated. The results
indicate that in the area underlain by liquefiable alluvial soils, seismic induced settlement on the order
of 2 to 5 inches could be expected.
10.5 Lateral Spreading
Current understanding within the geotechnical engineering profession is that lateral spreading can be
expected in liquefiable sites adjacent to slopes such as river channels or large bodies of water. The
observed horizontal ground displacement typically decreases with increased distances from the open
face.
The potential of lateral spreading is estimated based on the seismic deformation analysis using
Newmark's approach in accordance with FHWA guidelines for LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design
of Transportation Geotechnical Features and Structural Foundations (2011). The geometry of
embankment slope, the residual strength characteristics of the subsurface soil, the site acceleration
due to earthquake, as well as the water and groundwater levels are the important parameters in
estimating the potential for lateral spreading. Based on a PGA of 0.37g, the maximum earthquake-
induced horizontal ground displacement is calculated to be about 3Y2 inches at approximately 50 feet
from the open face of the northern embankment slope. Beyond 50 feet, the calculated horizontal
ground displacement is gradually diminishing. Because the calculated earthquake-induced horizontal
ground displacement is relatively minor, therefore the potential for lateral spreading at the subject site
is considered very low.
10.6 Tsunami
Tsunamis are large sea waves caused by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic eruptions.
The potential of tsunamis to occur at the site is considered to be very low due to the relatively large
distance from the coastline to the site.
Project No. 07135-42-04A - 12 - August 21, 2014
10.7 Seismic Slope Instability
Planned earthwork may include fill slopes along portions of the approach embankments or abutments
that are similar to the existing slopes. Assuming that new fill materials meet Caltrans' specifications
for structure backfill, 2H: IV (horizontal:vertical) or flatter fill slopes should have a factor of safety
greater than 1.5 against deep-seated and shallow failures under static loading and a factor of safety
greater than 1.1 under pseudo-static (seismic) loading, where the seismic coefficient of 0.12g that
equals to one third of the horizontal peak ground acceleration and not exceeding 0.2g should was
used in accordance with Caltrans Guidelines for Structures Foundation Reports (Version 2.0).
11. AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA
No bridge structure is present at the site. Therefore no as-built foundation data exists for the
project site.
12. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
According to current Caltrans' guidelines, foundation design for abutments and bents are based on
Working Stress Design (WSD) and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), respectively. Due to
the presence of shallow rock south of creek and liquefiable alluvium north of creek, a foundation
system consisting of both shallow and deep foundations is recommended. Specifically, footings at
Abutment I and Pier 2 can be supported on Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles with rock sockets
embedded in the competent igneous rock. Pier 3 and Abutment 4 can be supported on the competent
igneous rock using spread footings. Dependent upon the final footing location, excavations may
require dewatering. If the limits of disturbance within the creek channel will be jeopardized by the
foundation excavation, temporary shoring to facilitate the footing excavation should be considered.
Alternatively, Pier 3 can be supported by deep foundations consisted of CIDH piles extended into
competent igneous rock. Recommendations for CIDH piles at Pier 3 can be provided if required.
The foundation information from structure design is summarized in Tables 12.1 through 12.3. Our
recommendations are presented in the following sections based on the currently available project
information, and should be considered final unless otherwise stated. All data should be verified if the
final design loads and/or dimensions are modified.
Project No. 07135-42-04A - 13 - August 21, 2014
TABLE 12.1
FOUNDATION DESIGN DATA SHEET FOR CIDH PILES
Finish
Cut-Off
Pile Cap Size (ft)
___
Permissible Number of Support Pile Type Grade Elevation Settlement Piles per No. Elevation (ft) B L Under Service Support (ft) Load (in)*
Abut 1 42" CIDH Pile with 97.50 84.00 8.00 46.00 1 6
_
30" Rock Socket
Pier 2
F
60" CIDH Pile with 78.00 70.00 7.00 46.00 1 4 48" Rock Socket
*Bed on CALTRANS' current practice, the total permissible settlement is one inch for multi-span structures
with continuous spans or multi-column bents, one inch for single span structures with diaphragm abutments,
and two inches for single span structures with seat abutments. Different permissible settlement under service
loads may be allowed if structural analysis verifies that required level of serviceability is met.
TABLE 12.2
FOUNDATION FACTORED DESIGN LOADS FOR CIDH PILES
Service-I Limit State (kips) Strength/Construction Limit State Extreme Event Limit State
(Controlling Group, kips) (Controlling Group, kips)
Support
No.
Permanent Compression Tension Compression Tension
Total Load Per Loads Per
Per Max Per Per Max Per Per Max Per Per Max Per Support Support
Support Pile Support Pile Support Pile Support Pile
Abut I 1210 980 1910 320 0 0 980 690 0 360
Pier 3740 3050 5210 1310 0 0 3050 2190 0 670
TABLE 12.3
FOUNDATION DESIGN DATA SHEET FOR SPREAD FOOTINGS
Support
No.
Finish Grade
Elevation (ft)
Bottom Of Footing
Elevation (it)
Footing Dimensions (ft) Permissible Settlement Under
Service Load (in)* B I I L
Pier 3 77.00 69.00 10.00 46.00 1
Abut 4 94.00 80.00 8.00 I 46.00 1
*Based on CALTR.ANS' current practice, the total permissible settlement for a shallow footing is one inch for
multi-span structures with continuous spans or multi-column bents, one inch for single span structures with
diaphragm abutments, and two inches for single span structures with seat abutments. Different permissible
settlement under service loads may be allowed if structural analysis verifies that required level of serviceability
is met.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -14 - August 21. 2014
12.1 Shallow Foundations
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings, a shallow foundation system is
considered appropriated for the support of the proposed Pier 3 and Abutment 4. Foundation design
recommendations for spread footings and recommended spread footing data table in Caltrans LRFD
format are presented in Tables 12.1.1 and 12.1.2, respectively. Geotechnical recommendations
regarding retaining walls/wingwalls are presented in Section 12.3.
TABLE 12.1.1
FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPREAD FOOTINGS
Footing
Size Bottom 01 Minimum Total Service-1 Limit
State
Strength or
Construction Limit Extreme Event
(ft) Footing Permissible State q,=0.45 Limit State b=l.00
Support Footing Embedment Support No Elevation
(ft) Depth
(ft)
Settlement
(inches) •
- -
Permissible Net Factored Gross Factored Gross
B L Contact Stress2 Nominal Bearing Nominal Bearing
(ksf) Resistance (ksf) Resistance (ksf)
Pier 3 10 46 69 4 1 9.4 10.6 23.5
Abut 4 8 46 80 4 1 9.3 10.4 23.2
Controlling load combination is the one resulting in the highest ratio of q5jqR for foundations on soil, or
qg,,nc,.,/qR for foundations on rock.
For Service-I Limit State, controlling load combination is the one resulting in the highest ratio of qn.u/qpn for
foundations on soil, or q,,,,jqR for foundations on rock. Permissible Net Contact Stresses were calculated
for controlling load combinations.
For Strength, Construction, and Extreme Event Limit State, controlling load combination is the one resulting
in the highest ratio of q/qR for foundations on soil, or q,,,,jqR for foundations on rock, Factored Gross
Nominal Bearing Resistance were calculated for controlling load combinations.
TABLE 12.1.2
RECOMMENDED SPREAD FOOTING DATA TABLE
Service2 Strength! Construction Extreme Even t3
Support Location Permissible Net Factored Gross Nominal Factored Gross Nominal
Contact Stress Bearing Resistance Bearing Resistance
(Settlement) (ksf) b=0.45 (ksf) b1.00 (ksf)
Pier 3 9.4 10.6 23.5
Abut 4 9.3 10.4 23.2
I. Controlling load combination is the one resulting in the highest ratio of q,JqR for foundations on soil, or
qs,,n.:,/qR for foundations on rock.
Controlling load combination for Service Limit State is the one resulting in the highest ratio of for
foundations on soil, or qg,maJqR for foundations on rock.
Controlling load combination for Strength, Construction, and Extreme Event is the one resulting in the
highest ratio of qjqR for foundations on soil, or for foundations on rock.
Project No. 07135-42-04A - 15- August 21, 2014
12.2 Deep Foundations
Deep foundations are considered appropriate foundation types to mitigate the potential settlements
and differential settlements associated with the spread footing in liquefiable alluvial soils north of the
creek channel. Deep foundations consist of drilled shafts with rock sockets are recommended for the
supports at Abutment I and Pier 2. The geotechnical capacities of the deep foundations will be
derived from the skin friction on the wall of the rock socket. The rock sockets should have a
minimum diameter of 24 inches and embedded at least 10 feet in competent igneous rock. For the
purposes of WSD, an allowable skin friction of about 10 ksf can be used for the rock socket.
Foundation information and our recommendations are presented in Tables 12.2.1 and 12.2.2 in
accordance with Caltrans' LRFD procedure for bridge foundations.
TABLE 12.2.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CIDH PILES
Service-1 Limit Required Factored Nominal Resistance
State Load per Total (kips)_______________ Design Specified
Support Pile Cut-off Support Permissible Tip Tip
Location Type Elevation (kips) Support Strength/Construction Extreme Limit Elevations Elevation (ft) - Settlement (fi) (It) ________
Total Permanent (inches) Comp. Tension Comp. Tension
(9=0.7) (p =0.7) ((p=1.0) (p=1.0)
42" CIDH 48 (a-i)
Pile with 48 (a-lI)
Abut 1 30" Rock 84 1210 980 1 320 0 690 360 52 (WI) 48 or (d)
48(c)
Socket —(ci)
60" CIDH 42 (a-I)
Pile with 42 (a-Il)
Pier 48" Rock 70 3740 3050 I 1310 0 2190 670 47 (b-11) 42or(d)
42(c) Socket (d)
Notes:
Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a-I) Compression (Strength Limit), (b-I) Tension (Strength Limit),
(a-H) Compression (Extreme Event), (b-Il) Tension (Extreme Event), (c) Settlement, (d) Lateral Load.
The CIDH Specified Tip Elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations for tension, lateral, and tolerable
settlement.
Design tip elevation for Lateral Load is provided by the Structure Designer (SD).
Unsuitable soil layers (liquefiable), that do not contribute to the design nominal resistance exist at Abutment I and Pier
2 extending to elevations of 58 ft and 52 ft, respectively.
Project No. 0713542-04A -16- August 21, 2014
TABLE 12.2.2
RECOMMENDED PILE DATA TABLE
Support Nominal Resistance (kips)
_____________ ___________
Design Specified
No Pile Type Tip Elevations (feet) Tip Elevation (feet)
Compression Tension
Abut I 42" CIDH Pile with
30" Rock Socket 690 360 48 (a), 52 (b), 48 (c), -- (d) 48 or (d)
Pier 2 60" CIDH Pile with
48" Rock Socket 2190 670 42 (a), 47 (b), 42 (c), -- (d) 42 or (d)
Notes:
Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a) Compression, (b) Tension, (c) Settlement, (d) Lateral Load.
The CIDH Specified Tip Elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations for tension, lateral,
and tolerable settlement.
Design tip elevation for Lateral Load is provided by the Structure Designer (SD).
Unsuitable soil layers (liquefiable), that do not contribute to the design nominal resistance exist at Abutment I
and Pier 2 extending to elevations of 58 ft and 52 ft, respectively.
We understand that the specified pile length should not be less than the critical length for which
greater lengths do not results in a significant reduction in deflection at the pile top. Our recommended
soil parameters for LPILE analyses including the unit weights, friction angles, modulus, compressive
strength, and strain value are provided in Tables 12.2.3 through 12.2.6 below.
TABLE 12.2.3
RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR LPILE ANALYSIS (ABUT 1)
Soil Elevation (feet) Unit Friction Young's Uniaxial
Soil Model Weight Angle K Mod. Comp. RQD k rm Layer (LPILE) Top Bottom (pci) (pci) (psi) Strength
(psi)
1 Sand 84 76 0.0723 35 90 -- -- -- --
2 Sand 76 67 0.0723 30 50 -- -- -- --
3 Sand 67 58 0.0362 30 20 -- -- -- --
Weak 58 35 0.0810 -- -- 1.OE+06 750 30 0.0001 Rock
Project No. 07135-42-04A -17- August 21, 2014
TABLE 12.2.4
RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR LPILE ANALYSIS (PIER 2)
Soil Elevation (feet) Unit Friction Young's Uniaxial
_____ ________
S
Soil
Layer Model Weight Angle K
(Pei) Mod. Comp.
Strength
RQD
(%) k rm
- (LPILE) Top Bottom (Pei) (°) (psi) (psi)
1 Sand 70 67 0.0723 30 50 -- -- -- --
2 Sand 67 52 1 0.0362 30 20 -- -- -- --
Weak
Rock 52 30 0.0810 -- -• 1.OE+06 750 30 0.0001
TABLE 12.2.5
RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR LPILE ANALYSIS (ABUT I - LIQUEFACTION)
Soil Elevation (feet) Unit Friction Young's Uniaxial
_____ ________ Soil
Layer M odel Weight Angle K
(Pei) Mod. Comp.
Strength
RQD
(%) k rm
(LPILE) Top Bottom (Pei) (°) (psi) (psi)
I Sand 84 76 0.0723 18 45 -- -- -- --
2 Sand 76 67 0.0723 15 25 -- -- -- --
3 Sand 67 58 0.0362 15 10 -- -- -- --
Weak 58 35 0.0810 -- -- 1.0E+06 750 30 0.0001 Rock
TABLE 12.2.6
RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR LPILE ANALYSIS (PIER 2- LIQUEFACTION)
Soil Elevation (feet) Unit Friction Young's Uniaxial
Soil Model Weight Angle K Mod. Comp. RQD k rm Layer (LPILE) lop Bottom (Pei) (Pei) (psi) Strength (%) -
(psi)
Sand 70 67 0.0723 15 25 -- -- -. --
2 Sand 67 52 0.0362 15 10 -- -- -- --
Weak 52 30 0.0810 -- -- 1.OE+06 750 30 0.0001 Rock
We understand that the design tip elevations for lateral loads are provided by structure design. If
multiple rows of pile are planned at support locations with a center-to-center spacing of 2- to 7-pile
diameters, p-multipliers should be applied to account for reduced lateral resistance due to pile-soil-
pile interaction per current Caltrans Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Project No. 07135-42-04A - 18 - August 21, 2014
Geotechnical recommendation regarding shallow foundations and retaining walls/wingwalls are
presented in Sections 12.1 and 12.3, respectively.
12.2.1 Special Considerations for Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Piles with Rock Socket
CIDH piles with rock sockets are drilled shafts that require drilling and excavation into rock. Drilling
the igneous bedrock is very difficult. The contractor should have appropriate excavating and/or rock
coring tools for very hard and/or fresh rock. Casing and/or wet method may be considered to
facilitate the excavation of overburden materials and prevent borehole from caving of loose layers.
Because the shafts will develop support in socket length, therefore field inspection by a representative
of project geotechnical engineer should be performed to verify that the desired rock socket length and
rock conditions are as anticipated.
12.2.2 Special Considerations for Driven Piles
Deep foundations with driven piles are not selected by current design. Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for special considerations if driven piles are selected during final design.
12.3 Retaining Walls!Wingwalls
Abutments and wingwalls are typically unrestrained retaining walls that are allowed to rotate more
than 0.00IH (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall) at the top of the
wall. Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed
for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 36 pcf. Walls
supporting 2H: lv backfill should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pcf. For retaining
walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a
surcharge equivalent of 2 feet of fill soil (unit weight of 125 pcf) should be .added. Soil placed for
retaining wall backfill should meet the requirements outlined in Section 12.4 of this report.
Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by friction along the base of the wall foundation or by
passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Passive earth pressure may be taken as 150 pcf for
walls founded on a 2H: IV slope, and 340 pcf for horizontal ground in front of the wall. The
approximate value of relative movement required to reach the recommended passive earth pressure is
about 2 percent. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 is recommended for footings in properly
compacted fill. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40 is recommended for footings in Salto
Intrusive. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when
determining resistance to lateral loads. The upper 12 inches of soil in front of the wall should not be
relied on for passive resistance unless the ground surface is covered with asphalt or concrete.
Project No. 07135-42-04A - 19- August 21, 2014
Footings located within 7 feet of the top of slopes are not recommended. Footings that must be
located within this zone should be extended in depth such that the outer bottom edge of the footing is
at least 7 feet horizontally inside the face of the slope.
If Caltrans Standard Plans retaining walls, the net bearing stresses and/or the gross uniform bearing
stresses listed in Caltrans 2010 Revised Standard Plans for retaining walls can be considered for the
foundation soils provided that the maximum wall height does not exceed 14 feet.
All grading should be performed in conformance with Sections 6-3, 19-3, 19-5, and 19-6 of the
Caltrans Standard Specifications or equivalent.
All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of
hydrostatic forces. The drainage system should consist of wecpholes or backdrains. The above
recommendations assume a properly compacted granular backfill material with no hydrostatic forces.
If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired,
Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations.
Foundation excavations should be observed by the Engineer, or a representative of Geocon
Consultants Incorporated prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the
exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are
encountered, foundation modifications may be required.
12.4 Wall Backfill and Approach Fill Earthwork
All grading with properly compacted fill should be performed in conformance with Sections 6-3, 19-
3, 19-5, and 19-6 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications or equivalent. Backfill placed behind
abutment walls, retaining walls and wing walls should have a Sand Equivalent of 20 or greater.
Ponding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted.
If new fill will be placed over existing slopes at some locations to bring the ground surface to final
planned grades, they should be keyed and benched into the existing slopes in accordance with Section
19-6.03A of the Caltrans Standard Specifications.
12.4.1 Additional Considerations
Consideration should be given to the use of surface treatments to minimize surficial erosion until
adequate erosion-resistant vegetation can become established. All roadway drainage should be
directed to appropriate collection and discharge facilities to prevent run-off from flowing over the
tops of slopes. Surface paving is recommended for slopes steeper than 2H:IV.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -20- August 21, 2014
13. GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER
This report is prepared based on the currently available project information including the proposed
structures and foundations described in Sections 3.3 and 12, respectively. Geocon Incorporated must
be contacted for further recommendations if the proposed structures and foundations are changed.
14. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Areas to be developed should be cleared and stripped of obstructions, trees, bushes, grass, roots, and
the upper few inches of soil containing organic debris. Soils/organics removed by stripping can be
transported off-site or stockpiled for use in landscaping. Existing drainage and utility lines or other
existing subsurface structures that are not to be utilized, if any, should be removed, destroyed or
abandoned in compliance with applicable regulations.
Excavation of the onsite materials can be accomplished using conventional heavy-duty excavation
equipment. Excavation difficulty should be expected within the very dense and/or hard layers. Heavy
ripping will generate oversize materials not suitable for backfill. All excavations and trenches should
be properly maintained and/or shored in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations for
the safety and stability of adjacent existing improvements.
Perched groundwater may be present near areas where heavy irrigation has occurred. Generally,
perched groundwater will result in nuisance seepage. Dewatering should be considered if excavation
extending below the groundwater table.
Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical engineer
of record. CIDH pile and rock socket drilling should also be observed by a representative of the
project geotechnical engineer of record. The observation should be performed to evaluate whether the
exposed soil and/or rock conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil
conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.
15. DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION.
The recommendations contained in this report are based on specific project information regarding
structure type, location, and design loads that have been provided by T.Y. Lin International. If any
changes are made during final project design, Geocon should review those changes to determine if
these foundation recommendations are still applicable. Any questions regarding the above
recommendations should be directed to the attention of Mr. Yong Wang, 858-558-6900, at the San
Diego Office of Geocon.
Project No. 0713542-04A -21 - August 21, 2014
16. CLOSURE
16.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review
Geocon should review the grading plans and foundation plans prior to final design submittal to
determine whether additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.
16.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions
The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide
testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical
interpretation and ,to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site
development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of
foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services
during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the
responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to
the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised
recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written
acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They
should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical
Engineer of Record.
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the
assumption that the soil conditions do not .deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any
variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed
construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that
supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential
presence of hazardous was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings
of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore,
this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -22 - August 21, 2014
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation, 2011, California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, Fourth Edition.
--------, 2012, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0.
--------, 2009, Foundation Report Preparation for Bridge Foundations.
--------, 2014, Memos To Designers 3-1 and 4-1.
--------, 2009, Seismic Design Procedure.
--------, 2010, Standard Specifications.
FHWA, LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical Features and
Structural Foundations, Reference Manual, FHWA-NHI-11-032, GEC No. 3, August 2011
(Rev. 1).
Geocon Incorporated, Update Geotechnical Investigation, Amended Reclamation Plan,
Quarry Creek, Refined Alternative 3, Carlsbad, California, dated September 10, 2009
(Project No. 07135-42-01).
--------, Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry
Creek, Carlsbad, California, dated April 4, 2013 (Project No. 07135-42-02).
--------- Preliminary Foundation Report, Quarry Creek Bridge, Carlsbad, California, dated
March 12, 2014 (Project No. 07135-42-04).
--------, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek II, Carlsbad/Oceanside,
California, dated May 11, 2012 (Project No. 07135-42-03).
Larsen, E. 5., 1948, Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore and San Luis Rey
Quadrangle Southern California, Geological Society of America, Memoir 29.
M. P. Kennedy and S. S. Tan, 2005,Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'X 60' Quadrangle,
California.
Tan, S. S. and D. G. Giffen, 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego
County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 95-04.
Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.
YoLid, L. T., I. M. Idriss, et al., October 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary
Report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NGEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenv iron mental Engineering.
Project No. 07135-42-04A -23 - August 21, 2014
:
I
•- —
,-. -
'C.,
- F
HE 6E ,RAP4I .A INA kMATICE. 'A , A AAL -.NLE A Fl I LAl AIAA I'M FE I (,OOG EARTH
SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGMELMLN' IIE INAOSMAION IS 0R LLJSrRATI IL PRPOSES ONLY IT IS
NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENTS USE OR RELIANCE AND SMALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT. CLIENT
SMALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND MOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULT
OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT.
1k
NI
NO SCALE
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
YW / RS DSK/GTYPD
VICINITY MAP 1
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 08-21 -2014 1 PROJECT O7135-42-04A I FIG. 1
Plotted:08121I2014 9:00AM I B0RUDY SURYA I FIle Locallon:Y:\PROJECTS\0713542-04A_Ouarry Creek Byldge0ETAILS\VICMAP_FIG1.dwg
Camp
Pendlettu
North
Fa fib rook
w
fb San
Luk R SITE
Oceanside /Vista
Carlsbad
;o
U
Encinitas Ranch
\ Solana
Beach
REF MAP CaEr's ARS Orihe (V2.3.06)
4
NI
NO SCALE
GEOCON
IN P0 0 4051~;
GEOTECHNICAL U ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
YW I RS DSKIGTYPD
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 08-21 - 2014 1 PROJECT 07135-42 - 04A I FIG. 6
FM Ploted:09!212014 9:03AM I By:RUDY SURYA I File 1-ocatioe:Y:\PROJECTS07135_4204A Ouary Creek Bridge DETAILSRFM_F106.dwg
GEOCON.
<00) INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL . MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
YW I RS DSK/GTYPD
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I DATE 08-21 -2014 I PROJECT NO. 07135-42- 04A I FIG. 7
Quarry Creek Bridge
Design Response Spectrum (50/6 Damping)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
U)
C
.0
0.5
U
0.4
CL
0.3
0.1
0.0
1 .
Period (sec)
RECOMMENDED DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
RDRS PlatedO812112014 904AM I By.RUDY S4JRYA I Fe Lcn:YiPROJECTSW1135.42.O4A_Ouany Creek Bridge DETAiI.SRDRSjIG7.d,g
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation for this Foundation Report (FR) was performed between June 18 and July 2,
2014, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and drilling/coring 9 small-diameter borings near the
approximate locations of new foundations as depicted on the Site Plan/Geologic Map (Figure 2). Table A-
I is a summary of the boring information including the proposed structures, boring locations, surface
elevations, and boring depths.
TABLE A-I
SUMMARY OF BORINGS
Boring
No.
Approximate Boring Location
Boring
Depth (feet) Proposed
Structure
Station. No.
"Street B" Centerline
Offset
(feet)
Elevation
(feet)
R-14-001 Abut! 8+27 Lt24 96 39.5
R-14-002 Abut 1 8+27 Rt24 96 42
A-14-009 Abut 1 8+04 Rt 8 104 66
A-14-003 Pier 2 8+77.5 Lt 23.5 77 22
A-14-004 Pier 2 8+77.5 Rt 23.5 77 26
A-14-005 Pier 10+61.5 Lt 23.5 77 8.5
A-14-006 Pier 3 10+61.5 Rt 23.5 77 16
R-14-007 Abut 4 11+12 Lt 24 95 18
R-14-008 Abut 11+12 Rt24 93 15.5
Borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 8.5 to 66 feet below ground surface using
two different drill rigs. Boring A-14-009 was drilled/cored using a truck-mounted drill rig (Dietrich-120).
All other borings were drilled/cored using an all-terrain (ATC) drill rig. These two drill rigs were both
equipped with 8-inch-diameter, continuous hollow-stem augers, a 4-inch diameter rotary wash tn-cone
bit, and approximately 4-inch diamond coring bit. Specifically, R-14-001, R-14-002, R-14-007, and R-14-
008 were rotary wash borings and rock core borings; A-14-009 was combination of hollow-stem and rock
coring; and A-14-003 through A-14-006 were hollow-stem borings. The average hammer energy
efficiencies for ATC and Dietrich-120 rigs are about 78.8 and 80.2 percent, respectively.
In-situ testing and sampling during drilling were performed in general conformance with current Caltrans'
Soil and Rock Logging, Classification and Presentation Manual. Soil samples were collected from near
the ground surface and at approximately 5-foot intervals to the total depths explored. Relatively
undisturbed were obtained by driving an approximately 3-inch outside diameter (OD) split-spoon sampler
Project No. 07135-42-04A - A-I - August 21, 2014
(modified California sampler) into the "undisturbed" soil mass with blows from a 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches. The sampler was equipped with 6-inch-long by 2Y2-inch-diameter brass sample tubes to
facilitate sample removal and laboratory testing. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed by
driving a 2-inch OD split-spoon sampler 18 inches in general conformance with ASTM D1586. The
number of blows required to drive the samplers (blow counts) the last 12 inches of the 18 sample drive (or
portion thereof) are reported on the Boring Records and the Log of Test Borings (LOTB) sheets included
in Appendices A and C.
Soils encountered in exploratory borings were classified in accordance with ASTM Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488-00) and Caltrans' Soil and Rock
Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010 Edition).
All Boring Records are included in Appendix A. The LOTB sheets in Caltrans format are presented in
Appendix C.
Project No. 07135-42-04A - A-2 - August 21. 2014
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
BORING R-14-OO1
DEPTH
>I._
< SOIL I—Z
-
(fl
IN SAMPLE
NO. Z ELEV. (MSL.)96' DATE COMPLETED 06-26-2014
ZU
FEET Z Lu Cc Ix 20
01
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary Wash BY: A. Sadr °- 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- BI-1 Im .!fl.:. - SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light olive-grayish brawn; moist fine to
-
:j..114: medium grained. (COMPACTED FILL) -
2 - -
-
4
BI-2 -Dark grayish brawn; medium grained with trace angular coarse SAND; little 34 114.7 11.6
6 ••i
gravel. -
- -Grinding on hard rack. -
-Boulder; refusal; drilling stopped and resumed on 6/27/2014 by coring CORE
:f.. .•: through the boulder approximately 12". -
-Continued with Tr-cone rotary. 10 BI-3 - 16
:..!..1:k:. -Becomes gravelly from ii to 13 feet
12
-
.
14
-
BI4 :..1:.i -Dense; dark grayish brawn; moist; medium sand; little gravel. 56 129.4 9.3
- 16 •
. -
:.f.t.:.l:.
- 18
-
. - 20 Bl-5 ::; - CL. SANDY lean CLAY (CL); medium soft; very dark gray; wet, light gray spots. 8
- • (ALLUVIUM)
pp=l.Otsf -22
24
-
• BI-6 ::•:j:•..• 10 104.7 21.3
- 26 • ••. -
-28
Figure A-I,
Log of Boring R-14-001, Page 1 of 2
[U SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... CORE SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. if
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A - -
BORING R-14-001
DEPTH 8 < SOIL Z Cl) Ix
IN SAMPLE
FEET ELEV. (MSL.)9& DATE COMPLETED 06-26-2014 W Fa 9 o z p... :i
(USCS) 0 Ix > - 20
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary Wash BY: A. Sadr 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 30
-
-
81-7 :f9: - SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; grayish brown; wet; fine to medium.
- 32 -
-
-
34 -
-
-
-
BI-8 :I:}1:
-
12
36 -
38 -
- IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); massive; gray, moderately weathered; CORE
- - ____
very hard; moderately fractured. -
BORING TERMINATED AT 39.5 FEET.
Groundwater was not encountered.
• Backfllled with bentonite slurry on 06/27/2014
ERi=79%
Figure A-I,
Log of Boring R-14-001, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I] CORE SSAMPLE 10 STANDARI) PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
Ix BORING R-14-002 >LU >-
DEPTH
9
< SOIL IZ I)
IN
NO. x z ELEV. (MSL.)96 DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2014 FEET
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary Wash BY: A. Sadr
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
- :9: - SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; dark grayish brown; moist; fine to
- - medium grained. (COMPACTED FILL) -
- 2 - S
-
-
- 4 -
-
-
B24 SM-SC
-
SILTY to CLAYEY SAND (SM-SC); medium dense; dark brown; moist; fine 10
_
6 - to medium grained. -
-Becomes GRAVELLY from 8 feet.
8
-
-BOULDER; change to rock coring-,cored through BOULDER 12" thick. CORE
10
-
B2-2 23
-
12 -
14 -
SP Poorly-graded SAND (SP); medium dense; dark gray; fine and coarse SAND;
B2-3 some gravel.19
16 - c
- medium gravel; chunks of asphalt
18
- 20
- B2-4 :: - SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; dark gray; wet; fine grained; very thin 35 111.3 17.0
-
layer of SILT interbeds. (ALLUVIUM)
22
•
24
----
B2-5
::j:
CL SANDY CLAY (CL); soft; very dark gray; wet; mottled light gray. 8
:26-
28
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring R-14-002, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I] ... CORE SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A - -
Cr BORING R-14-002 - .uj
DEPTH 8
I-
< soti P: Z' i— c
IN SAMPLE CLASS <CO ZtL
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)95' DATE COMPLETED 06.30.2014 I-W9 oz
o
(USCS)
w wm M ,..- 20
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary Wash BY: A. Sadr 0 0
30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 826 - SC CLAYEYSAND(SC);mediumdense;darkgray,wet;finetomediumgravel. 17 113.1 18.4
32 -
B2-7
-Boulder (drilling stopped and resumed on 06/30/2014).
CORE
-
-06/30/2014 cored through the BOULDER, approximately 15'.
34 -
:•y.•:.
- 132-8 -Dense; dark gray; wet; fine to medium grained with angular GRAVEL. 30
36
38
- 82-9 - IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); massive; gray; highly weathered; hard; CORE
• fractured; medium grained; reddish orange iron oxide staining.
-Run ifmm38'to42'; recovery lo0%;RQD3I%
- 40 -
-Becomes moderately weathered.
- 42 - _____
- BORING TERMINATED AT 42 FEET.
Groundwater was not encountered.
Backfilled with bentonite slurry on 06/301201.4
ERi=79%
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring R-14-002, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE [U CORE SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SYMBOLS
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
- -
Uj BORING A-14-003. z Uj 0
DEPTH 0 < soii U)
SAMPLE ZU z
FEET NO. x z ELEV. (MSL.)7T DATE COMPLETED 06-30-2014
:i 0 w w 20
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary NSA BY: M. Mehta 0. 9
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0
- 99 - SP SILTY SAND (SM); dense; brown; dry; fine to medium grained. (FILL)
CL SANDY lean CLAY (CL); soft; dark gray; moist; slightly plastic.
2
- B3-1 :/:.. (ALLUVIUM) -
:.. -
B3-2 7,, CL LeanCLAY(CL);stiffdarkgray,moist;plastic. 14 106.5 22.1
6 pp"l.5tsf. -
- B3-3 -Groundwater at 10' below ground surface (no sample recovery).
-
10
- 12 - -
14
- - B3-4 -No sample recovery. - 14
16
-
18
- 20
- B3-5 / SANDY lean CLAY (CL); soft; gray; moist; medium plasticity. 50/5" • IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); gray; moderately weathered; hard;
22 - moderately fractured. ____ -
REFUSAL AT 22 FEET.
Groundwater encountered at 10 feet
Backfllled with bentonite slurry on 06/30/2014
ERi=79%
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring A-14-003, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I] ... coa SAMPLE [STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
11 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Ll CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, if
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A - _
cr BORING A-14-004 Zw ). 0 ui -
DEPTH
>-
8
I- < SOIL
0
IN
9 ELEV. (MSL.)iT DATE COMPLETED 06.30.2014 FEET
-J 0
ij >--.- oz
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary HSA BY: M. Mebta
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light brown; moist; fine to medium
- grained. (COMPACTED FILL)
2 - 84-I - CL SANDY lean CLAY; soft dark brown; moist; medium plasticity.
-
(ALLUVIUM) -
114-2 SC CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; dark brown; moist; fine grained. 15
6 - ./:.' pp=1.5tsf.
-
8- -
-
10 - : Y -Groundwater memred at 10 feet (when augers removed, not static level).
-
B4-3 :(•/• CL SANDY lean CLAY (CL); sofT; light gray, moist; medium plasticity. - pp=0.5tsf.
12
2
14- -
-
B4-4 1TI.:
-. - - - -
SM
- ----------------------------------
SILTY SAND (SM); Medium dense; light gray; wet; fine grained. 17 107.0 20.4
16 -
- :..j..:f: .•
-
• :l..4:
18
-
20- 84-5 ::4 -Rod getting stuck due to sands. 19
f• . -Becomes medium to coarse.
22 -
-
pp=l .0 tsf. -
-
24 - -
- 84-6 - IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); gray, massive; moderately weathered;
26 - ---• hard; moderately fractured. ____ -
REFUSAL AT 26 FEET.
Groundwater encountered at 10 feet.
Backfilled with bentonite slurry on 06/3=014
ERi=79%
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring A-14-004, Page 1 of I
EU ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS CORE SAMPLE U] STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A - _
ce LU BORING A-14-005 z Lu
DEPTH
>.
0<
I—
SOIL
o.
zt -
IN SAMPLE j CLASS '
CI)
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)770 DATE COMPLETED 0701-2014 CO
W COO
O
Oz (USCS) oLu _j >---
• EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary HSA BY: M. Mehta CI 0
•
• 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; brown; moist; fine to medium grained.
(FILL)
- 2 -----
B5-I CL SANDY lean CLAY (CL); stiff; dark brown; moist; trace angular coarse
SAND and GRAVEL maximum size Y2'
B5-2 SC cLAYEYSAND(SC)oose;lightbmwn,rnoist,finetornethumgrathed 15 940 26
6 /4 SAND.
S pp=l .5 tsf.
• j•: -Hard grinding noises - rig shaking - driller indicated bedrock.
8
IGNEOUS ROCK (Saito Intrusive); gray to light reddish; moderately
weathered; hard; fractured; trace reddish orange iron oxide mottling. /
REFUSAL AT 8.5 FEET.
Groundwater encountered at 6 feet.
Backfiiied with bentonite slurry On 07/01/2014
ERi=79%
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring A-14-005, Page 1 of I
r
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I] ... CORE SAMPLE I] STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE E CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
- -
BORING A-14-006 Zw-
DEPTH
>- CD < SOIL
0 i z u, - Z U.. Ir
IN SAMPLE
NO.
j CLASS (MSL.)7T DATE COMPLETED 07.01-2014 it cf)ELEV.
<<CI)
FEET
0 (USCS) CO >--- OZ 20 -J EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary HSA BY: M. Mehta a-
0 -
_____
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
:jT9: - SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light brown; damp; fine to medium
- grained. (COMPACTED FILL)
2 - B6-1 F.•:.:.
-. -.--- CL SANDY CLAY (CL); firm; dark brown; moist; medium plasticity.
- B6-2 Y -Groundwater 5.5 feet measured 07-02-2014. - ....35_ -
6 - B6-3
CL LEAN CLAY (CL); stiff light brown; moist; plastic. 9
- - pp=I.5tsf.
8 -
- IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); dark greenish gray decomposed; soft;
- intensely fractured COBBLE size; moderately weathered corestones. -
-10- B6-4 67
- -No recovery
- 12
14 - B6-5 -Highly to moderately weathered; dark gray with abundant iron oxide - 5016'
- - mottling; hard; slightly fractured; in-filled with iron oxide. -
RfJ - ______
- ----------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________
- 16 -
REFUSAL AT 16 FEET.
Groundwater encountered at 5.5 feet.
Backfllled with bentonité sluny on 07101/2014
ERi=79%
Figure A-6,
Log of Boring A-14-006, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS EU CORE SAMPLE I] STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
19 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q •.. CHUNK SAMPLE X WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT ThE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
BORING R-14-007 >-Lu z
DEPTH
MPLE 8 SOIL
o .
Z U. IN o• ELEV. (MSL.)95 DATE COMPLETED 07.01- 2014 I- FEET
zi 0 ((J5) u,9 >--- Oz
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary Wash BY: M. Mehta °-
• ____ ____
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
B7-1 - SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light brown; moist; fine to medium
- grained SAND; with angular GRAVEL COBBLE maximum size 12".
(COMPACTED FILL) 2
:.:f.J..f.
4
:.j:.
137-2 SC CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; brown to dark brown; moist; fine to 27
6 medium grained SAND; trace angular GRAVEL.
- - pp=4.5tsf.
-8- Z.
•
- 10
- 137-3 - IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); soft; orangish brown; intensely 72/11"
• weathered; intensely fractured.
12
- 14 -
B7-4 -Driller indicated very hard drilling; change to coring CORE
16 Cored 15'-I8 to confirm.
-Becomes gray, very hard; slightly fractured; moderately weathered.
- 18 _____
- REFUSAL AT 18 FEET.
Groundwater was not encountered.
Backfilled with bentonite slurry on 07/01,2014
- -
ERi=79%
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring R-14-007, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [U CORE SAMPLE I] STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U DRr/E SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
-
>-
-
BORING R-14-008 o.Lu
DEPTH SOIL
IN SAMPLE
NO. ELEV. (MSL.)93 DATE COMPLETED 07.01-2014 FEET
:i 0 w w 20
EQUIPMENT Limited Access Rig Rotary Wash BY: M.Mehta CI 0
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 88-1 1: - SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light brown; moist fine to medium
- grained with angular GRAVEL; some COBBLES maximum size 12°. -
:V (COMPACTED FILL) 2
- -
-
4 -
:•:•
-
-
•
138-2 SC CLAYEY SAND (SC); very dense; dark brown; moist; medium to coarse 54 18.8
6 - grained with angular GRAVEL maximum size 2". -
8-
B8-3
••/Y••.
CORE
-
-Switch to coring due to large boulder.
B84 CL SANDY lean CLAY; very stiff; olive to olive brown; moist; slightly plastic. 22
10
- B8-5 :./): ..CORE
12 -
-
-
- IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); gray, moderately weathered; hard
14 - intensity; intensely fractured. -
-Run (from 13' tO 15W; recovery ?%; RQD 10%
-Very hard below l5feet. I
REFUSAL AT 15.5 FEET.
Groundwater was not encountered.
Backfilled with bentonite slurry on 07/0112014
ERi=79%
Figure A-8,
Log of Boring R-14-008, Page 1 of I
EU SAMPLE SYMBOLS CORE SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 101 ... CHUNK SAMPLE X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLE
o•
-
i...M
-J
_
<
o
SOIL
(USCS)
BORING A-14.009
ELEV. (MSL.)104, DATE COMPLETED 06-18-2014
EQUIPMENT D-120 Hollow Stem BY: A. Sadr
Z <<
W00 Z LU w (L
o.wae
ZLL
0
-..--
-
I- z
oz 20
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
T.- SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light gray to white; moist; fine to
• medium grained. (COMPACTED FELL)
2
- -S - - - --
LA
---------- - - - -
SC
-
e CYEY
-
SAND (SC);dense;
-
dark brown
-
to
-
dark
--
gray;
--
fi
-
n grained.
---
.4
- .
-
B9-1 42
-6
- 10 B9-2 -Loose; wet; dark grayish brown. 9
-12
• ://?& .
14
-
B9-3 .::1. J. SM SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; moist; light brown; fine to medium 27
- 16 grained.
- 18
- .
- 20 -
B94 1.•F:.: -Becomes GRAVELLY from 20023 feet. 38
-
22 -
-
24 - :j.:.:
B9-5 SM-SC
----------------------------------
SILTY to CLAYEY SAND (SM-SC); medium dense; moist; dark graysih 26
26 - brown; fine to medium grained.
-
28 1
Figure A-9,
Log of Boring A-14-009, Page 1 of 3
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I] CORE SAMPLE 11 ... STANDARDPENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE IiJ... CHUNK SAMPLE X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A - .
Ir BORING A-14-009 z
DEPTH >- < soii i Z Cl) '
IN SAMPLE CLASS
ZLi.
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)104' DATE COMPLETED 06-18-2014 I-
U)9 >---..
_J 0
(USCS)
ui Cr 20
EQUIPMENT D-120 Hollow Stem - BY: A. Sadr
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30 B9-6 7;. - CL SANDY lean CLAY (CL); medium soft; dark grayish brown; mottled; light 9
-
- gray, wet; little fme grained. (ALLUVIUM)Y. -
:.;•: pp=0.5tsf 32 :7....
34.
139-7 . .2: SC CLAYEY SAND (SC); loose to medium dense; dark grayish brown; wet; fine 15
- 36 7. to medium grained. -
-
.
Z.
-38-
SC SEDIMENTARY ROCK (Poorly indurated SANDSTONE); moderately
- 40 - bedded; light greenish gray, moderately weathered; soft. (SANTIAGO - 89-8 FORMATION); [SILY SAND (SM); dense; moist, fine to medium grained, 30
weakly cemented] -
- 42 :•:•:•:•: -
44 . ...-..... -
- 139-9 ::: . -Switched to coring
.
50/5.5"
46 IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); massive; bluish gray; moderately CORE
- weathered; very hard; moderately fractured; strong; fractures range from -
approximately 450 to near vertical.
48 -
-Run I from 46' tO 50'; recovery 691%; RQD 461/6
-
50
. co RE
52
- -Run 2 from 50' tO 54'; recovery 87%; ROD 23%
54- .
S CORE
- -Run 3 from 54' tO 56'; recovery 96%; RQD 92% -
56-
. CORE
58 -
- -Run 4 from 56't061'; recovery 98%; RQD 39% -
Figure A-9,
Log of Boring A-14-009, Page 2 of 3
I [[1 ... CORE SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS
...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. if
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
- _
BORING A-14-009
DEPTH < SOIL 1.-t;: W.
IN SAMPLE Uj
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)104' DATE COMPLETED 06-18-2014 _____ _______ uj 55 0 oz
j 0 ZUj _j >.
EQUIPMENT D-120 Hollow Stem BY: A. Sadr °- - 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
60 - ______ _______________________________________________________________ -Strong iron staining along fractures
. -Moderately fractured. . - CORE
- 62 -Run 5 from 61' tO 64'; recovery 100%; RQD 20%
64- - CORE
-Run 6 from 64 tO 66'; recovery 100%; RQD 0% -
66 - -Intensely fractured. _______ -
REFUSAL AT 66 FEET.
No groundwater.
Backfilled with bentonite slurry
ERi=80%
Figure A-9,
Log of Boring A-14-009, Page 3 of 3
[U ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS CORE SAMPLE U] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
APPENDIX
JIi1K4 :1
LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests in general accordance with California Test Methods (CTM) and generally
accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). We performed the
following tests:
In-Place Dry Density and Moisture Content: ASTM D2937 (CTM 226) - 5 tests
Grain Size Distribution/Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve: ASTM D 422 —3 tests
Direct Shear: ASTM D 3080 - 2 tests
pH and Resistivity: CTM 643 —3 tests
Sulfate Content: CTM 417— 3 tests
Chloride Content: CTM 422 - 3 tests
Sand Equivalent: ASTM D 2419-3 tests
Unconfined Compression: ASTM D 2166-4 tests
Plasticity Index: ASTM D 4318 —2 tests
Uniaxial Compressive Strength: ASTM D 7012 —2 tests
Test results are presented on the following tables and figures. Brief descriptions of the laboratory testing
conditions and procedures are presented below:
In situ moisture content and dry density tests were performed on five selected tube samples. Tests
were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 (CTM 226). Results are presented in
Table B-I and on the Boring Records in Appendix A.
Grain size distribution and percent passing the No. 200 sieve (200-wash) tests were performed on
three selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 422. Tests results are summarized in
Table B-lI. Grain size distribution curves are depicted on Figure B-i.
Direct shear tests were performed on two selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM D
3080. Test results are summarized in Table B-Ill.
Soil corrosion parameters (pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride content) tests were performed on
three combined soil samples in accordance. with CTM 643, 417 and 422. Test results are
summarized in Tables B-IV, B-V, and B-VI.
Five soil samples were tested for their Sand Equivalent in accordance with ASTM D 2419. The
results are presented in Table B-VII.
Unconfined Compressive Strength tests were performed on two soil samples in accordance with
ASTM D 2166. The test results are summarized in Table VIII.
Project No. 0713542-04A - B-I - August 21, 2014
Plasticity Index tests were performed on two soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The
results are presented in Table B-IX.
Uniaxial Compressive Strength tests were performed on two rock cores in accordance with
ASTM D 7012. The results are presented in Table B-X.
The remaining soil samples are now stored in our laboratory for future reference and analysis if needed.
All soil and rock samples will be kept in Geocon laboratory for an additional 6 months following
completion of the final report.
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY IN SITU MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 2937/CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 226)
Boring!
Sample No.
Sample Depth
(feet)
Dry Density
(pci)
Moisture Content
(% dry wt.)
R-14-001/BI-2 5 114.7 11.6
R-14-001/BI-4 15 129.4 9.3
R-14-002/B2-6 30 113.1 18.4
A-14-0051B5-2 5 94.0 26.7
R-14-0081138-2 5 - 18.8
TABLE B-Il
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 422)
Boring/
Sample No.
Sample
Depth (feet) % Gravel % Sand % fines USCS
Classification
R-14-001/ 131-7 30 8 64 28 SM
A-I4-002/B2-6 30 1 0 1 68 32 SM
A-14-0041B4-4 15 1 0 1 79 21 SM
TABLE B-Ill
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 3080)
Boring/ Sample Dry Density Moisture Angle of Shear
Sample No. Depth (feet) (pci) Content (%) Cohesion (psi) Resistance
(degrees)
R-14-0021132-4 20 111.3 17.0 860 22
A-14-0041B4-4 15 107.0 20.4 660 27
Project No. 07135-42-04A - B-2 - August 21, 2014
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (PH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
(CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643)
Boring/Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) pH Resistivity.(ohm centimeters)
R-14-001IB1-1 0 7.5 820
A-14-004184-3 10 8.4 900
A-14-0051135-2 1 5 7.8 590
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
(CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417)
Boring/Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Water-Soluble Sulfate, ppm
R-14-001I131-1 0 420
A-14-0041B4-3 10 40
A-14-0051B5-2 5 100
TABLE B-VI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
(CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422)
Boring/Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Chloride Ion Content, ppm
R-14-001IB1-1 0 230
A-14-004f134-3 10 150
A-14-005/135-2 5 100
TABLE B-VII
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 2419)
Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (feet) Sand Equivalent
R-14-001 BI-2 5 14
R-14-001 BI4 15 33
A-14-003 B3-1 2 12
A-14-004 B44 15 19
A-14-007 B74 0 16
Project No. 07135-42-04A - B-3 - August 21. 2014
TABLE B-VIII
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
(ASTM 02166)
Boring No. Sample No. Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi)
R- 14-001 BI-6 9.2
A-14-003 133-2 16.3
TABLE B-IX
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY PLASTICITY INDEX TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 4318)
Boring No. Sample No. Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil
Classification
R-14-00I B1-6 33 17 16 CL
R-14-002 B2-6 30 19 11 CL
TABLE B-X
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 7012)
Boring No.. Sample No. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (psi)
A-14-009 139-I0A 23,050
A-14-009 139-I013 20,700
Project No. 073542-04A - B-4 - August 2120I4
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
I I
IIIUI!UhliN!'VUIIIIlOIIiIUI_11111111
,IUUIriIII0hIiiiitk1 111111111 11111111
111111_1111011_11111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII____
11111111 IIIIIIIIUIINIIUI 11111111 .111111
111111 1111011 IIIIIIIiIIllhIIII IIIlIIII :1
,
111111_1111011_11111111 iIIIIUI_1111111
11111 1111011 11111111 .11111 11111111
1111011 IOIIIIIhiII1IIII .111111 11111111
111111_IIIIII1IIUIIIIIII_11111111_IIIIIIII____
• 111111 IIIII1IIU1IINIII 11111111 1111111
, •
GRADATION(CURVE
A•W1.i.1V BRIDGE 'tUI1kk 2k11 I
CALIFORNIAi
W1b-4.O4A.GPJ Figure B-i
GE000N
IGRAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY COARSE _FINE ICOARSEl_MEDIUM _FINE
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL P1
A-14-004 15.0 (SM) Silty SAND
R14-001 30.0 (SM) Silty SAND
R-14-002 30.0 (SM) Silty SAND
APPENDIX
APPENDIX C
LOG OF TEST BORINGS
FOR
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
M
PLAN VIEW cIr7 2
cli 1i1
00
uIJ) /1 M
In W
'- (J
100 ft
R-14-OO1
96 Ft SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light olive-grayish brown; fine to medium 95 ft grained SAND. (COMPACTED FILL) BULK
I 341 2.4 -Dark brown; medium grained with trace angular coarse SAND; 90 ft
TT -Grinding on hard rock.
'--Boulder; refusal; drilling stopped and resumed on 6/27/2014 by caring
85 ft I 161 1.4 through the boulder approximately 12".
\'- -Continued with Tr-cone rotary.
L -Becomes gravelly from 11 to 13 feet.
80 ft I 561 2.4 -Dense; dark grayish brown; moist; medium sand; little gravel.
75 ft I 81 1.4
SANDY lean CLAY (CL); medium soft; very dark gray; wet, light gray spots.
(ALLUVIUM)
pp=1.0 tsf.
70 ft I 1012.4
- . -, SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; grayish brown; wet; fine to medium. 65 ft I 111 1.4 :
60 ft I 121 2.4
4 v IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); massive; gray, moderately weathered; very hard;
moderately fractured.
55 ft
06-27-2014
BORING TERMINATED
AT ELEV. 56.5 FT GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN 9ORING
PROFILE VIEW
ER71cAL SCALE S 1 5'
NOTES'
I) TEST BORINGS R.-14-001 AND R-14-002. WERE ORIU..EO USING A LIMITED ACCESS DRILL RIG EQUIPPED WITH 4 DIAMETER ROTARY 1111-CONE 011 AND CORING EQUIPMENT.
THE APPROXIMATE BORING COORDINATES Also ELEVATiON ARE BASED ON THE BENCH MARK INFO
PROVIDED BY T.Y. UN INTRENAIIONAI. AND FIELD SURVEY STARES SET BY OTHERS. Jll 2.4-INCH SAMPLES WERE TAKEN USING A MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SOL-BARREL SAMPLER WITH AN INSIDE DIAMETER OF 2.4-INCH AND OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF 3-INCH.
A 140 1.8 ONE AUTOMATIC HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WAS USED TO DRIVE SAMPLER.
-
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION OF EARTH MATERIALS WAS BASED ON 110,0 INSPECTION AND WAS
I 'I IX CONFIRMED OR REVISED WITH LABORATORY TEST RESULTS.
B) THIS LOTS SHEET REPRESENTS THE OPINION OF THE CEOLODIST/ENOlsEER AS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE MATERIAL AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN. SQL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITiONS BETWEEN ADJACENTT TEST HOI,ES AND AT OTHER LOCATIONS MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
5
' 7) THIS LOTS SHEET WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALTRANS Sail. AND ROCK LOGGING.
MAY CHANGE WITH PASSAGE OF TIME.
i
CLASSInCAT1ON. AND PRESENTATION! MANUAL (2010).
to
VI Ltl
100 ft
R-14-002
96 Ft
95 ft ________________ 'tf_J SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; dark grayish brown; moist; fine to
medium grained. (COMPACTED FILL)
90 ft I iOj 1.4 SILTY to CLAYEY SAND (SM-SC); medium dense; dark brawn; moist;
fine to medium grained.
-Becomes GRAVELLY from 8 feet.
"--BOULDER; change to rock coring; cored through BOULDER 12" thick.
85 ft I 231 2.4
_______ Poorly-graded SAND (SP); medium dense; dark gray; fine and coarse SAND;
80 ft I 191 1.4 some gravel.
CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; dark greenish gray, moist; fine to
rllecilum gravel; chunks of asphalt.
75 ft I 351 2.4 SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; dark gray: wet; fine cralned; very thin layer
of SILT interbeds. (ALLUVIUM)
70 ft ' I 81 1.4 SANDY CLAY (CL); soft; very dark gray, wet; mottled light gray.
65 ft I 1712.4 ..3M8@ CLAY SAND (SC): medium dense: dark gray. wet: fine to medium gravel.
1"- -Boulder (drilling stopped and resumed on 05/30/2014).
'--06/30/2014 cored through the BOULDER; approximately 15".
3 1.4 -Dense; dark gray; wet; fine to medium grained with angular GRAVEL.
60 ft
4) \ IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); massive; gray, highly weathered; hard; fractured;
RECIO0% 1 medium grained; reddish orange iron oxide staining.
55 ft
-Run I from 38' to 42'; recovery 100%; ROD 31%
06-30-2014
BORING TERMINATED Al DIV. 54.0 FEET AS BUILT GROUNDWATER WAS NOT
ENCOUNTERED IN BORING ERi79% -
RCE................... EXP_________ DATE
EVIEWED BY:
ISPECTOR DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION J OiIEP iPPR0V CITY APROYiL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL U ENViRONMENTAl, . MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE- SAN DIEGO, CAW0R14A 92121- 2974
MONE 858558.6900-FAX 08 558.6159
BENCH MARK
ODICEPTE1I: a- 2" NDV 4' u is ws' _______
LXATEN: IV mp Or air 20W ' I.UF7II ar G4R2SBAD samir a, a, w (,ASTIV PDV1Z4C OE
AGE 11217 DATE D
0EiATERI J17.176 OATUM: NGIC 1S29 CMCDM OF
SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD I' 80 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT L.a
RXStm
.
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS I OF 8
COP. 11-10
APPROVED BY JASON S. GELOERT
DlCD41NG MANAGER P( 63912 E). 9/3D/I4 DATE
OWN BY: - PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. cHXD BY. RVWOBY:XXXX
A GEOCON AMN
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHMCAL • ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 n.AI'l)ERS DRIVE 'SAN DEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974
PHONE 8585586900. FAX 858 558'6159
BENCHMARK
OI'lEiA asp,- =,?* RON Fm wAw ovmw is 5215'
WCATERV AW W W 0JT2ONE 30' NONm a, 04RE5W lwa.e. aH.AEAsTFP0'lI7ACDR
IT ORD FROIE AEE 1/271
CZAATERA JIRI/5 DAI1JIL Ne1O 1929
PROFILE VIEW
VERTiCAL SCALE • I' 5'
80 ft
75 ft
70 ft
65 ft
60 ft
55 ft
NOTES
I) TEST BORINGS 4-14-003 AND A-14-04. V.ERE DRILLED USING A LIMITED ACCESS ORI.1. RIG
EQUIPPED WiTH B' DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER. cj SI
THE APPROXIMATE BORING COORDINATES AND ELEVATION ARE BASED ON THE BENCH MARK INFO PLAN VIEW PROVIDED BY T.Y. UN INTERNATIONAL AND FIELDSURVEY 514NZ$ SET BY OTHER.
do 7 INSIDE or 2.4-I AND OUTSIDE DIAMETER
CALIFORNIA
F 3NCIt
SCALE 1 - 50' 2.4-INCH SAMPLES WERE TAKEN USING A MODIFIED C SOIL-BARREL SAMPLER WITH AN
B - 3 . . .8 •I i 4) A 140 LB ClAD AUTOMATIC HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WAS USED TO DRIVE SAMPLER.
RI t 12 5) VISUAL CLASSIFICATION OF EARTH MATERIALS WAS BASED ON FIELD INSPECTiON AND WAS U l .r CONFIRMED OR REVISED WiTh LABORATORY TEST RESULTS. -14-0
-14
-
6) THIS LOTS SHEET REPRESENTS THE OPiNION OF THE GEOLODIST/ENGINEER AS 10 THE CHARACTER
OF THE MATERIAL AT E LOCATIONS SHOWN. SOIl. AND GROUNDWATER CONOIITONS SETVEEN AOJACOIT I4- 7. . l— 4— THE HOLES AND AT OTHER LOCATIONS MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS MAY CHANGE WITH PASSAGE CT TIME.
7) THIS LOTS SHEET WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIRANS SQL AND ROCK LOGaN
CLASSIFICATION. AND PRESENTATION MANUAL (20)0).
0 It) in
N N N
+ 10 ,03
LI-
Li W
zJ .
U) It)
1') A-14-003 80 ft A-14-004
77 Ft J SILTY SAND (SM); dense; brown; dry; fine to medium grained. (COMPACTED FILL) 77 Ft SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light brown; moist; fine to medium grained.
BULK SANDY lean CLAY (CL): Soft; dark gray, moist; slightly plastic. (ALLUVIUM) 75 ft (COMPACTED FILL)
BULK SANDY lean CLAY; soft; dark brown; moist; medium plasticity. (ALLUVIUM)
1412.4 166 Lean CLAY (CL); stifl. dark gray, moist; plastic. 1512.4 CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; dark brown; moist; fine grained.
/ pp 1.5 tsf. 70 ft pp=1.5 tSf.
______ •Elev 67'
(no sample recovery) [=I C " SANDY lean CLAY (CL); soft; light gray, moist; medium plasticity. I lOjl.4 / _ 65 ft pp-0.5 tsf.
11412.4 / —No sample recovery. 2.4 3DsG@ SILTY SAND (SM); Medium dense; light gray; wet: tine grained.
60 ft
SANDY lean CLAY (CL); soft; gray, moist; medium plasticity. 1.4 —Rod getting stuck due to Sands.
"- IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); gray; —Becomes medium to coarse. moderately weathered; hard; 55 ft pp=l.O tsf. moderately fractured.
06-30-2014
BORING TERMINATED IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); gray; massive: moderately weathered; hard;
AT ELEV. 55.0 FEET 50 ft moderately fractured. GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT ELEV. 67 FEET 06-30-2014 ERI-79%
BORING TERMINATED
AT ELEV. 51.0 FEET
GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
AT ELEV. B? FEET
ER.-79%
~k
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1" - 50
NOTES
I) TEST BORINGS A-I4-005 AND A-14-006. WAS DRILLED USING A LIMITED ACCESS DRILL RIG
EQUIPPED WITH & DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER.
THE APPROXIMATE BORING COORDINATES AND ELEVATION ARE BASED ON THE BENCH MARX INFO PROVIDED BY T.T. UN INTERNATIONAl. AND FIELD SURVEY STAKES SET BY OTHER.
2.4-INCH SAMPLES WERE TAKEN USING A MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SOIL-BARREL SAMPLER IMTH AN INSIDE DIAMETER OF 2.4-INCH AND OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF 3-INCH.
A 140 LB CUE AUTOMATIC HAMMER FAUJNG 30 INCHES WAS USED TO INlINE SAMPLER.
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION OF EARN MATERIALS WAS BASED ON FIELD INEC11ON AND WAS CONFIRMED OR RENTSSI) WITH LABORATORY TEST RESULTS.
1545 LOTS SHEET REPRESENTS THE OPINION OF THE GEOLOGIST/ENGINEER AS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE MATERIAL AT THE LOCATiONS SHOWN. SOIl. AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS BETY.tL'1 ADJACENT TEST HOLES AND AT OTHER L0CA110145 MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS MAY CHANGE WITH PASSAGE OF TIME.
1545 LOTS SHEET WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WiTH THE CALTRANS SOIL AND ROCK LOOSING. CLASSIFICATION. AND PRESENTATION MANUAL (TOlD).
0
10
0I- Ui
Zr (4J
80 ft A-14-005 80 ft 8
77 F
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; brown; moist; fine to medium grained.
75 ft (COMPACTED FILL) 75 ft
BULK SANDY lean CLAY (CL); stiff; dark brown; moist; trace angular coarse SAND
15 24
and GRAVEL maximum size 4".
70 ft CLAYEY SAND (SC); loose; light brown; moist; fine to medium grained SAND.
tsf. ____________________________________________________________ 70 ft
• EI 1'
07-01-2014 —Hard grinding noises - rig shaking - driller indicated bedrock.
65 ft IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); gray to light reddish; moderately 65 ft BORING TERMINATED weathered; hard; fractured; trace reddish orange iron oxide mottling. AT ELEV. 68.5 FEET
GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT ELEV. 71 FEET Eft -79U
60 ft
0
10
+
0
UJ
D
In
A-14-006
77 Ft
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light brown; damp; fine to medium grained.
COMPACTED FILL
SANDY CLAY (CL); firm; dark brown; moist; medium plasticity.
BULK 71.5'
911.4 LEAN CLAY (CL); stiff; light brown; moist; plastic.
pp1.5 tsf.
IGNEOUS ROCK (Salta Intrusive); dark greenish gray. decomposed;
I 6711.4 soft; Intensely fractured; moderately weathered corestones.
50/6"lI 4 -Highly to moderately weathered; dark gray with abundant iron oxide mottling;
I hard; slightly fractured; in—filled with Iron oxide.
50,3" 1.4
07-01-2014
BORING TERMINATED AT ELEV. 61.0 FEET GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT U.EV 71.5 FEET
ERI=795
"AS BUILT"
PROFILE VIEW
VERTICAL SCALE : 1" - RCE.....____.... EXP________ DATE
REVIEWED BY:
DATE I
BENCHMARK
omwww aw-w 2" ROY Aw wAm mAev 256215 GE 0 CON wcws wr.so _ H
. L L
OME
IIU.4 139. al M7&4STO'17ACDA ______________________ INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL . MATERIALS RMORI) FROM, *es ,rnv ___________________ ZK
6960 flANDERS DRIVE -SAN DkGO. CAIIORNIA 92121- 2* I DAN WhIM. I
PH0pE858 5566900-FAX 856 558-6159 115*11511 .JIZ 178 CATiIM *iv :s Ic, 11I REVISION DESCRIP11ON AJ,ROVAL OTT UPROVaL
OF CARLSBAD [!JI CITY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 87
RAW RR'
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 3 OF 8
CAP. Il-SO
I APPROVED BY: JASON S. GELDO1T I
IENCINEER1NG I MANAGER FE 63912 EXP. 9/30/14 DATE
1011W BY: PROJECT NO. IlORAWING NO.1 CHXD BY: __Il lR%l*D BY:_ II I
GEOCON
INCORPORATED Qr)
GEOTECHNICAL U ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 R.A1IDS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CAIJF004A 92121-2974
PH06( 858558.6900- FAX 08 558-639
BENCHMARK
OESalBIw OI- 2' AN PM W,Dr UAIDW IS 6265•
LXATEN LV 7' Or Wr J1aV SO IINN OF G02.SE40 MACE OK. 01W LIST LV PGV/INC At
BIODRD FROM: ABE 1271
WAIM. 217.129 DAT..IlA ATM) 1929
PROFILE VIEW
VERTICAL SCALE 1' = 5.
I
NOTES:
I
ROTARY IRI-CONE BIT AND ROCK CORING EQUIPMENT.
I) TEST BORINGS R-14-007 AND R-14-008. WAS DRUM USING A LIMITED ACCESS DRILL RIG EQUIPPED WITH 4
PLAN VIEW ME APPROXIMATE BORING COORDINATES AND ELEVATION ARE BASED EN THE BENCH MARK INFO
SCALE 1 - 50 PROVIDED BY T.Y. UN IPY1ERNA11ONAL AND FIELD SURVEY STAKES SET BY OTHER. ;
2.4-INCH SAMPLES lItRE TAKEN USING A MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SOIL-BARREL SAMPLER V.11)4 AN 4 79 INSIDE DIAMETER OF 2.4-INCH AND OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF 3-INCH.
12 4) A 140 LB ME AUTOMATIC HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WAS USED TO DRIVE SAMPLER.
-A-r 5) VISUAl. CLASSIFICATiON OF EARTH MATERIALS WAS BASED ON FIELD INSPECTION AND WAS
411 CONFIRMED OR REVISED VIN LABORATORY TEST RESULTS.
-14 THIS LOTS SHEET REPRESENTS THE OPINION OF THE GEOLOGIST/ENGINEER AS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE MATERIALAT THE LOCATiONS SHOWN. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS BETWEENADJACENT 'TEST HOLES AND AT OTHER LOCATiONS MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS MAY CHARGE 64Th PASSAGE OF TIME.
-
THIS LOTS SHEET WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE AITH THE CALTRANS SOIL AND ROCK LOGGING.
CLASSIFICATION. AND PRESENTATION MANUAL (2010).
100 it
95 it
90 it
85 it
60 it
75 it
100 it
95 it
90 it
85 it
80 it
75 it
y
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense: liht brown; moist: fine to medium grained 3ULK SAND; with angular GRAVEL COBBLE maximum Size 12. (COMPACTED FILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC): medium dense: brown to dark brown; moist; fine to medium
grained SAND: trace angular GRAVEL.
pp-4.5 tsf.
1.4 IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive): soft: orangish brown: intensely weathered
intensely fractured.
pp=4.5 tsf.
._..--Driller indicated very hard drilling: change to coring
Cored 15-18' to confirm.
..,---Becomes gray: very hard: slightly fractured: moderately weathered.
07-01-2014
BORING TERMINATED AT ELEV. 77.0 FEET GROUNDWATER WAS NOT
ENCOUNTERED IN BORING
ERt79%
+1 CM
Ui
In
iL,1J
CM I R-14-008
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense; light brown; moist fine to medium grained
with angular GRAVEL: somL COBBLES maximum 91CC 12'. (COMPACTED FILL)
M CLAYEY SAND (SC): very dense: dark brown; moist: medium to coarse grained
I
with angular GRAVEL maximum size 2'.
4 "--Switch to Coring due to large boulder.
%-SANDY lean CLAY; very stiff: olive to olive brown: moist: slightly plastic.
IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); gray: moderately weathered: hard: Intensely
fractured.
—Very hard below 15 feet.
07-01-2014
BORING TERMINATED AT ELEV. 77.5 FEET GROUNDWATER WAS NOT
ENCOUNTERED IN BORING ERI.79%
1.4
PLAN VIEW
105 ft
100 ft
95 ft
90 ft
85 ft
80 ft
75 ft
70 ft
65 ft
60 ft
* 0
+ ID ED
CI-
f K
4
CO
A-14---09
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light gray to white; moist; fine to medium
grained. (COMPACTED FILL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC); dense; dark brown to dark gray, fine grained.
—Loose; wet; dark grayish brown.
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light brown; moist; fine to medium groined.
—Becomes GRAVELLY from 20 to 23 feet.
SILTY to CLAYEY SAND (SM—SC); medium dense; dark praysih brown; moist; fine
to medium grained.
pp= 3 tsf.
SANDY lean CLAY (CL); medium soft; dark grayish brown; mottled; light groy,
wet; little fine SAND. (ALLUVIUM)
ppO.5 tsf.
CLAYEY SAND (SC); loose to medium dense: dark grayish brown; wet; fine to
medium grained.
SEDIMENTARY ROCK (Poorly indurated SANDSTONE); moderately bedded; light
greenish gray moderately weathered; soft. (SANTIAGO FORMATION); [SILY SAND
(SM): dense; moist, fine to medium grained. weakly cemented]
NOTES:
I) TEST BORINGS A-I4-009. WAS DRILLED USING A UMITED ACCESS DRILL RIG EOUPPEO NTH 8-
I" DULME1ER HOLLOW STEM AUGER AND ROCK CORING EOUIP%ENT.
• 2) THE APPROXIMATE BORING COORDINATES AND ELEVATION ARE BASED ON THE BENCH MARK INFO PRONGED BY T.Y. UN INTERNATIONAL AND FIELD SURVEY STAKES SET BY OTHER.
7 3) 2.4-INCH SAMPLES V.ERE TAKEN USING A MODIFIED CALIFORNIA 508.-BARREl. SAMPLER RIIH AN INSIDE DIAMETER OF 2.4-INCH AND OUTSIDE DIAMETER CT 3-INCH.
II 4) A 140 LB CME AUTOMATIC HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WAS USED TO DRIVE SAMPLER.
5) VISUAL CLASSIFICATION OF EARTH MATERIALS WAS BASED ON FIELD INSPECTION AND WAS I CONFIRMED OR REVISED 11TH LABORATORY TEST RESULTS.
8 6) THIS LOIS SHEET REPRESENTS THE OPINION OF THE GEOLOGIST/ENGINEER AS TO THE CHARACTER
OF THE MATERIAL AT THE LOCATIONS SHOwN. SOIl. AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS BETWEEN ADJACENT IV TEST HOLES AND AT OTHER LOCATIONS MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS MAY CHANGE WITH PASSAGE OF TIME.
I 7) THIS LOIS VAN THE WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE VA THE CALTRANS SOIL AND ROCK LOGGING.
(
S
/
CLASSIFICATION. RICO PRESENTATION MANUAl. (2010).
60 ft
150/51 2.4
IGNEOUS ROCK (Salto Intrusive); massive; bluish gray, moderately
weathered; very hard; moderately fractured; strong; fractures range from
55 ft approximately 45 to near vertical.
REC-87RI
ROD-23%
50 ft
RE
REC-96%
RQD92%
REC98%
45 ft ________________ ROD-39%
—Strong Iron staining along fractures REC —Moderately fractured. RQO-2O%
40 ft REC-IOOR R000% —Intensely fractured.
' ft 06-18-2014
BORING TERMINATED
AT ELEV. 38.0 FEET
GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN BORING
EN-80%
AS BUILT"
PROFILE VIEW
VERTICAL SCALE 1' - 5' RCE_......... EXP_________ DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION Sfl MN'ROWL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED -01)
GEOThCHN1CALU ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 RANDS DRIVE - 5Ar'l Cp t4A 92121-2974
RiW 858558.6900- FAX 08 558-6159
BENCHMARK
GEDOCWIIDN: a39- r no mr W1W39' MAR= 23 5219'
LCCRIIDN W w ar WT2 50'ANWIW W C08.5040 K&ICE a. a, w £6ST ar FGVflAC RE
RND MM: ADy 112/7
IDEAAIL* X? 178 DV11B AE* 1929
FE fl CITY OF CARLSBAD MUM
L.J ENGINEERING OEPARNID9T 87
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 5 OF 8
COP. 11-10
APPROVED BY: JASON S. GC,DERI
ENGINEERING MANAGER PE 63912 EXP. 9/39114 DATE
DAN BY: PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. CHICO
BY. Rl.'AD BY: c.T /1-04 XZY—X
CEMENTATION
Description Criteria
Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or
little finger pressure.
Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable
finger pressure.
Strong Will not crumble or break with finger
pressure.
BOREHOLE IDENTIFICATION
Symbol yn ° Hole
Type Description
DA Auger Baring (hollow or solid stem
bucket)
R Rotary drilled boring (conventional)
RW Rotary drilled with self—casing wire—line
RC Rotary core with continuously—sampled, self—casing wire—line
P Rotary percussion boring (air)
R Rotary drilled diamond care
HO Hand driven (1—inch soil tube)
HA Hand Auger
0 0 Dynamic Cone Penetration Boring
A CPT Cone Penetration Test (AST)4 D 5778)
El 0 Other (note on LOTB)
Note: Size In inches.
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
Description Shear Strength Pocket
Penetrometer Torvane Vane Shear (tsf) Measurement, PP. (tsf) Measurement, TV, (tsf) Measurement, VS. (tsf)
Very Soft Less than 0.12 Less than 0.25 Less than 0.12 Less than 0.12
Soft 0.12 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.5 0.12 - 0.25 0.12 - 0.25
Medium Stiff 0.25 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 0.25 - 0.5 0.25 - 0.5
Stiff 0.5—i 1-2 0.5-1 0.5-1
Very Stiff 1-2 2-4 1-2 1-2
Hard Greater than 2 Greater than 4 Greater than 2 Greater than 2
5
C
0
'i Hole I.D.
Casing driven ___ ::: 3DescrIption of material Size of Sampler .5...
(inches) 6 1.4 v u au—Field & Lab Tests
SPT N—Velue GWS Elev.
(per ASIM 1586-99), .• Date measured
P = push sample. .:::...: aterial change
or as noted . ::. stirnot:d materiel change
boundary
Boring Date
Terminated at Bev
Hammer Energy Ratio (ER ) F
ROTARY BORING
Hole I.D.
Top Hole . I
Blows per 12 in. - 30 c Ground water
(Using 28 lb hand •. / surface
hammer with a 12 in. :- cs 0ev.
drop or as noted) Date easured
(S) Sample
Description of
Pulled Pipe < In
500 taken
60
Refusal
Boring Date
Terminated at Elee
HAND BORING
I
U 0 -j Hole I.D. T Hole 0.
No count recorded NC P GWS
Pushed Date It
Driving rate in 160
seconds per 12 in. 37
91
(using a Stanley 17
56
MB 156 percussion 511 hammer and a 2.2 in. 65 so cone, or as noted)
Boring Date 100
Terminated at Bev
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION BORING
C
.2
Hole I.D.
Top Hole 0.
Pressure measured
along sleeve friction
element (34.88 in 2 Pressure measured
area) divided by on tip element
pressure measured in 2area)
on tip element.
Friction Ratio (%) Tip Bearing (Tsf)
Boring Date
Terminated at Bev
CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) BORING
AS BUILT"
RCE_ EXP_________ DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION I OINR AJPROVM. am j,,,avj&
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL U ENViRONMENTAl. IN MATERIAlS
6960 RANIXRSOVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFOBMA 92121-2974
PHOI.E 858558.6900-FAX 858 55"159
BENCHMARK
ecJw'mw a.w- r way Fff WIVW MA80 156215
LDCA1't ur w or aI12 E 50' AWN or IeMa, 0Iw&rST41FFev1kCLR
escosa FRO1k 40S 11217
6L1EN: 211115 5ASJM MAY 1929
85 11 CITY OF CARLSIBUIrguM ENAEERING OEPAR11VENI 87
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 6 OF 8
CAP. li-la
APPROvtD BY: JASON Si. GaDZRr
D4OINPlG MMAW PE&3912 EXP. 9/YJI 14 DAM
DAN Br: - PROJECT NO. ORAUNG NO. crew e__.___ B....,. Ci: 11-04 11 XXX—X
FIELD AND LABORATORY
TESTING
Consolidation (ASTM D 2435)
Collapse Potential (ASTM D 5333)
Q
Compaction Curve (CTM 216)
Carrosivity Testing
CR (CTM 643. CTM 422. CTM. 417)
Consolidated Undrained
CU Triasiol (ASTM D 4767)
Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080)
Expansion Index (ASTM 0 4829)
Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216)
Organic Content-% (ASTM 0 2974)
Permeability (CTM 220)
®
Particle Size Analysis (ASTM 0 422)
Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90)
Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89)
Point Load Index (ASTM 0 5731)
Pressure Meter
R-Volue (CTM 301)
Sand Equivalent (CTM 217)
Specific Gravity (AASHTO T 100)
Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D 427)
Swell Potential (ASTM 0 4548)
Unconfined Compression-Soil
®(ASTM 0 2166)
Unconfined Compression-Rock
(ASTM D 2938)
Unconsolidated Undrained
UU Trioxial (ASTM 0 2850)
Unit Weight (ASTM D 4767)
RCE_ CXP________ 0*11
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
APPARENT DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS
Description SPT N 60 (Blows / 12 in.)
Very Loose 0 — 5
Loose 5 — 10
Medium Dense 10 -30
Dense 30 — 50
Very Dense Greater than 50
MOISTURE
Description Criteria
Dry No discernable moisture
Moist Moisture present, but no tree water
Wet Visible free water
PERCENT OR PROPORTION OF SOILS
Description Criteria
Trace Particles are present but estimated to
be less than 5%
Few 5% — 10%
Little 15% — 25%
Some 30% — 45%
Mostly 50% — 100%
PARTICLE SIZE
Description Size (in.)
Boulder Greater than 12
Cobble 3 — 12
Gravel Coarse 3/4 — 3
Fine 1/5 — 3/4
Sand
Coarse 1/16 — 1/5
Medium 1/64 - 1/16
Fine 1/300 — 1/64
Silt and Clay Less than 1/300
"AS BUILT"
REFERENCE: CALTRANS SOIL & ROCK LOGGING. CLASSIFICATION, AND PRESENTATION MANUAL (2010)
GROUP SYMBOLS AND NAMES
Graphic/Symbol Group Names Graphic/Symbol Group Names
Well-graded GRAVEL 7 Lean CLAY
S.. GW Well-graded GRAVEL with SAND
CL
Lean CLAY with SAND
Lean CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY lean CLAY
30001 Poorly-graded GRAVEL SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL
GP / GRAVELLY lean CLAY a Poorly-graded GRAVEL with SAND GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND
1 Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT I LTY CLAY
SSILTY S GW-GM
Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND /
/
/ CL-ML
CLAY with SAND
SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY SILTY CLAY
SANDY SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL AVEL with CLAY ' S ILuY CLelI-ar.9ded AY GR ,or
5 GW-GC GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND / GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY relI_qde LAY and SAND) / GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY with SAND
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with SILT SILT
GP-GM SILT with SAND
o Poorly-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND SILT with GRAVEL
ML SANDY SILT
SANDY SILT with GRAVEL
.5- 0 j Poorlv-cro,Qed (or LAY?RAVEL with CLAY .L
0
, GP-GC
or.(orrodt GRAVEL with C and CLAY and SA!
GRAVELLY SILT
GRAVELLY SILT with SAND
0 SILTY ILTY GRAVEL .1
I ORGANIC lean CLAY
GM ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND
OL
ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY
CLAYEY GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL
R_
GC GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND I- I GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
SILTY. CLAYEY GRAVEL ORGANIC SILT GC-GM ORGANIC SILT with SAND
SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND
OL
ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC SILT
SANDY ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL Well-graded SAND
; SW GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT with SAND
Poorly-graded SAND Fat CLAY
SP Fat CLAY with SAND
Poorly-graded SAND with GRAVEL
0011, CH
Fat CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY fat CLAY
Well-graded SAND with SILT SANDY fat CLAY with GRAVEL
I
GRAVELLY fat CLAY Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL GRAVELLY fat CLAY with SAND
IIfaeeLS4 C) wlih CLAY Elastic 31LT
/ SW-SC ell-arade SAor YND with CL.AT and GRAVEL (or SILTY LAY and GRAVLL) NH
Elastic SILT with SAND
Elastic SILT with GRAVEL
SANDY elastic SILT
Poorly-graded SAND with SILT SANDY elastic SILT with GRAVEL
11: Se-SM GRAVELLY elastic SILT Poorly-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL GRAVELLY elastic SILT with SAND
Poor with CLAY ('L1eLAY ORGANIC fat CLAY
/ SP-SC or
Por4-gode LAY and GRAVEL) N8 with CLAY and
OH
ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY
SILTY SAND SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL SM GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY SILTY SAND with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND
CLAYEY SAND ORGANIC elastic SILT
SC ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL
I
OH
ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL SC-SM GRAVELLY ORGANIC elostic SILT SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND
- ORGANIC SOIL
PT PEAT - ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
OL/OH
ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC SOIL
SANDY ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL COBBLES . COBBLES and BOULDERS GRAVELLY ORGA!VIC SOIL BOULDERS GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
ecioii aFi!ai AFr wDSrMrnIDlswrW
-0ar
I I I I GEOCON I I I I
BENCHMARK I I I I I
INCORPORATED IRLA .. 01 ?.Q EAST Jt4C CE I I I I
GEOTECHNICAI.• ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS ,rni I I I I 6960RAND9SDRM- SAN OWGO,CAUFORIdA92I21-2974 I 0*1! I SliM.1 0*15 IIIN. I
PH0I'B58358-69O0- FAX 8583586159 0I'ATIGN: j,z,,s ciuu: ,icio im I REVISION DESCRIPTION OTAR APPROVAL i ° I
CITY OF CARLSBAD 86 11 NISNEERINC OEPARTVENT I[!
PZANS ;W. QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 7 OF 8 cap. is-ia
1APPROVED BY: JASON S.GaDERT IENC1NEEI1I14C MANAGER Pt 63912 EXP. 9/39/14 DATE
lOIN BY: - PROJEC1' NO. II DRAwiNG NO.1 loeco Bv:_II IRVWD BY:..._...... C.r f/-04 II xxx-x I
LEGEND OF ROCK MATERIALS
20 IGNEOUS ROCK
SEDIMENTARY ROCK
METAMORPHIC ROCK
sHEEr
87 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENaRttC CEPARfliE7tT 87
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 8 OF 8
CAP. 11-10
APPROVED BY: 415011 S. GaCERr
E4QNflPR4G MANAGER FE &1912 EP. 9/30/14 DAN
OW7J sw PR04ECT NO. DRAPING NO. CIIKD BY:_______ R.BY:................ Ci /1-04 X.kW"X
REFERENCE: CALTRANS SOIL & ROCK LOGGING, CLASSIFICATION, AND PRESENTATION MANUAL (2010)
I PERCENT CORE RECOVERY (REC) & ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (ROD) I
z: Length of the recovered core pieces (in.) 100% REC = Total length of care run (in.)
Length of intact core pieces 4 ir ROD = Total length of core run (in.)
Begin/End drilled
interval (t)p)
e I.D.
ROD Indicates soundness criteria not met.
ROCK HARDNESS
Description Criteria
Extremely Hard Cannot be scratched with a pocketknife or sharp pick. Can only be chipped
with repeated heavy hammer blows.
Very Hard Cannot be scratched with a pocketknife or sharp pick. Breaks with repeated
heavy hammer blows.
Hard Con be scratched with a pocketknife or sharp pick with difficulty (heavy pressure).
Breaks with heavy hammer blows.
Moderately Hard Can be scratched with pocketknife or sharp pick with light or moderate
pressure. Breaks with moderate hammer blows.
Moderately Soft Can be grooved 1/16 in. deep with a pocketknife or sharp pick with moderate
or heavy pressure. Breaks with light hammer blow or heavy manual pressure.
Soft Can be grooved or gouged easy by a pocketknife or sharp pick with light
pressure, can be scratched with fingernail. Breaks with light to moderate manual pressure.
Very Soft Can be readily indented, grooved or gouged with fingernail, or carved with a
pocketknife. Breaks with light manual pressure.
FRACTURE DENSITY
Description Observed Fracture Density
Unfractured No fractures.
Very Slightly Fractured Core lengths greater than 3 ft.
Slightly Fractured Core lengths mostly from 1 to 3 ft.
Moderately Fractured Core lengths mostly from 4 in. to 1 ft.
Intensely Fractured Core lengths mostly from I to 4 in.
Very Intensely Fractured Mostly chips and fragments.
WEATHERING DESCRIPTORS FOR INTACT ROCK
Diagnostic Features
Chemical Weathering-Discoloration Mechanical Weathering-
and/or Oxidation Grain Boundary Condi- Texture and Leaching
Description tians (Disaggregation) General Characteristics
Fracture Primarily for Granitics
Body of Rock Surfaces and Some Coarse-Grained Texture Leaching
Sediments
Fresh No discoloration, not No discoloration No separation, Intact No change No leaching Hammer rings when crystalline
oxidized, or oxidation. (tight). rocks ore struck.
Discoloration an oxida-
Slightly tion is limited to stir-
face of. or short dix-
Minor to complete
discoloration or No visible separation. Preserved Motor leaching Hammer rings when crystalline
Weathered tance from, fractures; oxidation of most intact (tight). of some sot u-
ble minerals.
rocks are struck. Body of
rock not weakened. some feldspar crystals surfaces.
are dull.
Discoloration or oxida-
Moderately
tion extends from frac-
tures usually through- All fracture surfaces Partial separation of Generally Soluble mm- Hammer does not ring when
Weathered out; Fe-Mg minerals are are discolored or
oxidized, boundaries visible, preserved erals may be rock Is struck. Body of rock
rusty. feldspar mostly leached, is slightly weakened.
crystals are cloudy."
Discoloration or oxi- Dull sound when struck with
dation throughout; all Texture hammer, usually can be broken
feldspars and Fe-Mg All fracture surfaces Partial separation, rock altered by Leaching of with moderate to heavy manual
Intensely minerals are altered are discolored or is friable; in semiarid chemical soluble mm- pressure or by light hammer
Weathered to clay to same extent;
or chemical alteration oxidized, surfaces conditions gronitics are disintegro-
tion (hr erals may be blow without reference to
planes of weakness such as
produces in-situ dis- friable, disoggregated. dratlon. complete. Incipient or hairline frac-
aggregation, see grain argillotion). tures, or veinlets. Rock is
boundary conditions, significantly weakened.
Discolored or oxidized
throughout, but resis- Resembles a soil, partial Can be granulated by hand.
Decomposed
tant minerals such as Complete separation or complete remnant rock Resistant minerals such as quartz may be unaltered; of groin boundaries structure may be preserved; quartz may be present as all feldspars and Fe-Mg (disaggregated). leaching of soluble stringers or c1&es, minerals are ccmpletely minerals usually complete.
altered to clay.
BEDDING SPACING
Description Thickness / Spacing
Massive Greater than 10 ft
Very Thickly Bedded 3 ft - 10 ft
Thickly Bedded i ft - 3 ft
Moderately Bedded 4 in. - 1 ft
Thinly Bedded 1 in. -4 in.
Very Thinly Bedded 1/4 in. - 1 in.
Laminated Less than 1/4 in.
GEOCON
INCORPORATED G)
GEOTECHN1CAL 2 ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 RAtS DRIVE SAN DGO, CAUFORMA 92121-2974 pf153 5569)0 FAX 858558.61.59
BENCHMARK
tiescemiai& asp- r icav Fw wluw mAss is em'
WCA1Rw air sort X'weni a, cooRst" V4LAor LiE. aIM &STorPGVRACDe
REM rlww RN 112/1
EiA1R* .1111/5 QAML JXW 1929
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D
ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS
FOR
QUARRY CREEK BRIDGE•
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-04A
AV&C, C,
Fault & Site Data Input Sheet
The fault and site data input sheet is to help the user organize the data for developing the design response
spectrum. Refer to the 'Technical References" section of the ARS Online website for fault and site data.
Project Information
Dist - Project No: County: SD Route: PM:
Bridge/Facility Name: (iesru (1QM.. Pri d Bridge/Facility No.:
Latitude: 111 Longitude: —li? . 16 2
Fault Information Information 01) 430 e-
Fault Name: P4u1 IIit1I ,nsr iWfA Fault ID#: 381
In ' MMax: .i Fault Type:
Fault Dip: q1jó
Dip Direction: V
Top of Rupture: () Bottom of Rupture: tO liifll
Plan View Elevation View
Fault Information 02)
Fault Name: No (axujoil Fault ID#:
Wax: J.1L Fault Tye: 65
Fault Dip: _____ Dip Direction: V
Top of Rupture: Bottom of Rupture: A. It44i
Plan View Elevation View
\ P
-
5IT:F-
true
Till:
STV
Calculated or Measure Distances
RRUP:
R 6:
R:
Determination of V
VS30 (m/s): 3 bO
Determination of Zia and Z..
Z1.0 (m/s): -'
Z2.5 (kmis):
Calculated or Measure Distances
ARUP: fri.
RJB: 1L3t
R:
Determination of V
Vs30(m/s): _______
Determination of Z1.o and
Z10 (m/s):
Z2.5 (km/s): Y'
j Were the Near-Fault Factors and deep Basin depths R1.0 & Z2.5) estimated correctly applied correctly?
1 Nt Is the site located in a special zone/case (e.g. Eastern California Shear Zone, Cascadia Subduction Zone)? ." Was the USGS Deaggregation Tool used to estimate the distance for Near-Fault Factor (Probabilistic Method)
.I" Did the ARS Online design spectrum correspond within 10% of the USGS Deaggregation Tool (with factors) for
the Probabilistic Method and within 10% of the deterministic spreadsheet for the Deterministic Approach?
Caltrans ARS Online
Quarry Creek Bridge
SELECT SITE LOCATION
Viejo wi&ç 'NZ $ldrir N to
or
erofj
Nical 1cm vIa
S a in
5S•*
\
tlertnte
liliLiock
\\\\
valley
it (Freer
N u fcrtond,do
Finrrchtt 1,01Cc Bertiarrlc flumpu I
Lvr'ul 1wiy
Of upu ri
Iv
[I Cap a n
tItC'tiP T; ,-
Latitude: 3.3 1 78772 Longitude: .117 3026:37 Vs,o: 3130 m:u ClictICIF
CALCULATED SPECTRA Utrcolaç Curru 3
Location: LA1 =33.178772 LONG=-117.30263/ Vs30=360,n/s
1tar,ruDetFr risact 0 STectrua U
N€aport.lndlsrsud (sfpshuret (111th Near Fault Factor App ieit)
USGS 5Z in 51) year~ hazard (20US) ~With flear Fault, Factor, Applied)
Period, S(een)
Tabular Data Envelope Only Hide Near Fault Acts Scale Show Basin
Apply Near Fault Adjustment To:
!tCE Cit as 500 cares acpcsiC CIa lea, Fact 4u5ime1 'actor far eta, 0 ar Sc fl'! Pni from
Ile ia, e art
Leterr'raiatrc Spectrum Ustag
1216 Kr IlevpOrtingltrood cOfislrore;
1239 Km Rose Ccs;on fault zone r0ceanside sectrc1
3275 Km Elsinore (Julian;
' Pichaclistic Spctru'r Using
131 Kr' (Ruccr-r'erd Pnrfca-in5 Oeaqpregahoir To Vedf'jl
Slant; Spectrum with Adustest Only
She a Soectru with and without new fault Ad-usts'ent
OK
2 0.086
3 0.05
4 0.034
5 0.025
3 0.134 1 1.2 0.161
4 0.096 1 1.2 0.115
5 0.079 1 1.2 0.095
ProbabIstic_Response_Spectrum.x1s 3/6/2014 11:18 AM
PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
Peak Horiz. Ground Accel.>=0.3324 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate .103E-02. Mean Return Time 975 years
Mean (R,M,e0) 21.8 km, 6.60, 0.86
Modal (R,M,e0) = 13.1 km, 6.64, 0.69 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,E*) = 13.2 km, 6.64, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin)
Binning: DeltaR 10. km, deltaM=0.2, Deltae=1.0
E'4
I '
U I -
I , I II• I --
ZP
Distance (R). magnitude (N), epsilon (EO,E) doeggrogetion for a site on soil with average vs 350. mIs top 30 in. USGS CCItT PSHA2000 UPDATE Bins with It 0.05% contrib. omitted
PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.3031W,33.179N. 1% SA period 0.10 sec. Accel.>-0.6073 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate .103E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,e) 19.7 km,6.43, 0.93
Modal (R,M,c0) = 13.1 km, 6.64, 0.74 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,E*) = 13.2 km, 6.64, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin)
> Binning:
lie
DeltaR=10. km, deltaM=0.2, DcltaE=] .0
t'l
%
C,
lap
1127
Prob. SA, PGA
<median(R,M) >median .
! E0 <-2 0<E0 <O5
0 -2<%<-1 0.5<€<1
-0.5 <e<0 LI 2<Eo< 3 200910 UPDATE
14 Feb 2600:23:241 Distance (R), magnitude (M), epsilon (EO,E) doaggrogetian for a site on soil with average vav 360. mls top 30 m. USGS CGH1 PSHA2008 UPDATE Sins with It 0.05% contrib. emitted
PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
SA period 0.20 sec. Accel.>=0.7462 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate .103E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,c0) 21.6 km,6.53, 0.96
Modal (R,M,E0) = 13.1 km, 6.64, 0.68 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,E*) = 13.2 km. 6.64, Ito 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin)
Binning: DeltaR=10. km, deltaM=0.2, DcltaE=1.0
J1
co
Prob. SA, PGA
2009 10 UPDATE
?jI 2014 Feb26 O0:23:5] Distance (R), magnitude (M), epsilon (E0,E) deoggregatlon for a site on soil with overage vs- 360. mIs top 30m. USGS CGI4T PSHA200I UPDATE Bins with It 0.05% contrib. omitted
PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
SA period 0.30 sec. Acccl.>=0.7073 g
Ann. Excccdance Rate .103E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,%) 24.1 km,6.67, 1.00
Modal (R,M,E0) = 13.1 kin, 6.64, 0.68 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,c*) = 13.2 km, 6.64, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin)
Binning: DeltaR=10. km, dcltaM=0.2, DcltaE=1 .0
s1
C.
I
C,
- qP
Prob. SA, PGA
-C-
<median(R,M) >median
O<€<O.5"
1J-2 < F, < -1 0.5<€<1 .
-
-
1<<2 Q,•
-0.5<<0 0 2<e<3 200910 UPDATE - -b
jjjJ 2014 Feb26 00:24:081 Distance (R), magnitude (M), epsilon (EO,E) deaggregation for a sits on soil with average vs- 380. m18 top 30 m. USGS CGHT PSHA2008 UPDATE Sins with it 0.05% contrib. omitted
Prob. SA, PGA
<median(R,M) >median
O<E0 <O ,
0 -2<%<-1
-o.s<<o D 2<%<3 200910 UPDATE
FISH Deaggregation on NEHRP CD soil Ni Unnamed 117.3030 W,33.179N.
SA period 0.50 sec. Accel.>=0.5778 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate .103E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,c0) 27.6 km,6.84, 1.02
Modal (R,M,e0) = 13.1 km, 6.64, 0.68 (from peak FM bin)
Modal (R,M,E) = 13.2 km, 6.64, 1 t 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin)
Binning: DeltaR=10. km, dcltaM=0.2, DcltaE=1.0
ua
2014 Feb26 00:24:481 Distance (B), magnitude (M). epsilon (EO,E) deaggregation to, a site on soil with average v5-350. mis top 30 rn USGS CCIII PSHA2000 UPDATE Bins with it 0.05% contrib. omitted
PSH Deaggregation on NEI-IRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
SA period 1.00 sec. Acccl.>=0.3655 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate .104E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,E0) 37.8 km,7.11, 1.16
Modal (R,M,) = 12.4 km, 6.95, 0.51 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,E*) = 33.7 km, 7.59, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin)
Binning: DeltaR=10. km, deltaM=0.2, DeltaE=1.0
Prob. SA, PGA
<median(R,M) >median .
0<e0 <5 °' 0
0 -2<E0<-1
-0.5 < <0 _1 2 <E0 < 3 200910 UPDATE
jjjj 2014 Feb 26 00:25:211 Distance (R). magnitude (U), epsilon (EO,E) doaggrogaUon for a site on cell with average vs 300. We top 30 in. USGS CCitt PSHA2001 UPDATE Sine with 110.05% contrib. omitted
. ,-
PSI-I Deaggregation on NEI-IRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
SA period 2.00 sec. Accel.>=0.1970 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate . 104E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,e) 49.0 km,7.32, 1.25
Modal (R,M,e) 34.3 km, 7.5 8, 0.98 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,E*) = 34.3 km, 7.58, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin
Binning: DeltaR=10. km, deltaM=0.2, DeltaE=1.0
Prob. SA, PGA
0
<medlan(R,M) >median
' €ll < 2
-2 << -)
-1<a0 <-0.5
05 < F-0 <0 Li 2 <F,0 <3 200910 UPDATE
[?iIi 2014 Feb 26 00:25:411 Distance (It). magnitude (M), epsilon (EO.E) deaggregatlon fore alto on son with average vs. 360. mIs top 30 m. USGS CGHT PSHA2006 UPDATE Bins with It 0.05% cant,lb. omitted
ep
PSH Deaggregation on NEFIRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
SA period 3.00 sec. Accel.>=0.12737 g
Ann. Excecdance Rate .103E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,%) 54.2 km,7.43, 1.23
Modal (R,M,E0) = 33.8 km, 7.76, 0.67 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,E*) = 34.2 km, 7.58, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin
inning: DcltaR=10. 1cm, deltaM=0.2, DeltaE=l .0
°Z
Prob. SA, PGA ego,,
<median(R,M) :-median -
O<%<Oft'.
0 2<%< I
D 2<<3 200910 UP DATE
Distance (R), magnitude (Id), epsilon (EO,E) doaggregatlon for a she an soil with average vs 360. mIs top 30 In. USGS CGHT PSHA2001 UPDATE Bins with it 0.05% contrib. omitted
'e' 1101 1 , 1 00 " Ir I SNO i
PSFI Deaggregation on NEHRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
SA period 4.00 sec. Accel.>=0.09 156 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate .103E-02. Mean Return Time 975 yrs
Mean (R,M,E0) 55.7 km,7.46, 1.23
k10da1 (R,M,c0) = 34.0 km, 7.75, 0.66 (from peak R,M bin)
4oda1 (R,M,E) = 34.1 km, 7.75, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin;
3nning: DeltaR=10. km, deltaM=0.2, DeltaE=1.0
Prob. SA, PGA
<median(R,M) >median
e<2 0<Eo<0
E5'
C] -2<Eo<-1 O.5<%<1
1<e0 <2
-0.5<<0 0 2< ED <3 200910 UPDATE
Distance (R), magnitude (M), epsilon (EO,E) deaggrog.tlon for a site on soil with average vs 360. mis tap 30m. USGS CGH1 PSI4A2OOI UPDATE Bins with It 0.05% contrlb. emitted
U
PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP CD soil
Unnamed 117.303°W, 33.179 N.
SA period 5.00 sec. Accel.>=0.07582
Ann. Exceedance Rate .103E-02. Me. turn Time yrs
Mean (R,M,c0) 58.4 km,7.47, 1.27
to Modal (R,M,) = 71.7 kin, 7.59, 1.5 m peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,c*) = 71.7 km, 7.59, it i a (fro pe k R,M,c bin)
Binning: Delta R= km, deltaM=0 , e taE=i.0
c\1
Prob. SA, PGA
<median(R.M) >median
EO <-2 0< € < ,
0.5<€0<1
-0.5 < eo <0 2<F-0 <3 200910 UPDATE
RM 2014 Feb 2600:26:201 DIstance (R), ivanItude (M), epsilon (50.5) deaggreaUon fore site on soil with average vs-.360. We top 30 in. USGS CGHT P50*2008 UPDATE Bins with It 0.05% contrib. omitted
Quarry Creek Bridge
07135-42-04
Quarry Creek Bridge
Design Response Spectrum (5% Damping)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.3
02
0.1
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec)
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
DESIGN DATA
I (sec) Design S (a)
0.01 0.368
0.05 0.564
0.1 0.678
0.15 0.764
0.2 0.831
0.25 0.806
0.3 0.786
0.4 0.701
0.5 0.642
0.6 0.598
0.7 0.566
0.85 0.518
1 0.479
1.2 0.405
1.5 0.329
2 0.252
3 0.161
4 0.115
5 0.095
Data Used for Design ARS Online - Probabilistic
Quarry Creek Bridge; Project No. 07135.424MA
Co.SPT Depth, ft R-14.001 Cr-1.31 R.14.002 1.31 A-14.003 C0 1.311A-144)04 Co-1.311A-14-005 C 1.31 A-14.006 Ce 1.31 R-14.007 C 1.31 R-14.008 Co-1.31 R-14.009 Co-1.34
From To DI I SPT Cal N. Ne.A, SPT Cal I N 'OOA SPIT Cal N0 I.JSPT Cal N. 4., SP1 Cal N10 N6@Ad SPT Cal N10 N.0Ad SPT Cal N10 GOAd SP Cal No M60a SP Cal N10 NOOAd SF Cal N10 NGGAd Avg N dUNl VI, mis DIM
o s 5 34 27 27 18 24 24 14 11 11 17 13 13 15 12 12 9 12 12 27 21 21 29 23 23 42 34 34 20 0.26 238.2 0.021
5 .10 5 16 21 21 23 18 18 10 13 13 9 12 12 100 131 100 67 88 88 79 104 100 22 17 17 9 12 12 42 0.12 297.89 0.0168
10 15 5 56 44 44 19 25 25 14 11 11 17 13 13 100 131 100.100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 27 22 22 57 0.09 325.01 0.0154
15 20 5 8 11 11 25 20 20 71 93 93 19 25 25 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 38 51 51 67 0.08 339.57 0.0147
20 25 5 10 8 8 8 11 11 100 .131.100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 26 21 21 71 0.07 346 0.0145
25 30 5 11 14 14 17 13 13 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 9 12 12 71 0.07 346.1 0.0144
30 35 5 12 9 9 30 39 39 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 15 12 12 73 0.07 349.36 0.0143
35 .40 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 36 48 48 94 0.05 375.57 0.0133
40 45 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 .131.100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 80 80 98 0.05 379.63 0.0132
45 .:501 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 .131.100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 134 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
50 55 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 134 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
55 168 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 134 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
60 65 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 10010o. 134 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
65 70 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 134 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
70 75 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131.100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 134 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
75 .80 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
80 .85 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 100 0.05 382.09
90 5 100 131 100 100
A100
131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100
0.0131
85 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100
a-.
100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
90 95 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 100 0.05 382.09
100 5 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100
0.0131
95 131 100 100 131 100 100 131 100 100 100 0.05 382.09 0.0131
sum '100 . . . Weighted Avg N 71.50 1V.,. I 3551
Notes: . Soil Profile Typo CLASS 0 Say 360
A conversion factor of 0.6 is assumed from Cal N to SPT N.
Blow count with limited penetrationfrefusal was estimated with linear relationship for 12 penetration rate, but not to exceed 100.
Soil profile type based on current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
olwsioniess Soils Cohesive Soils Young Sedimentary Rocks
CPT Su CPT SPT SPT
q1, We o, MPa VI, mis DIM Su Pa Vi, mis DIM q, kPa Vi, Is I DIM Vi, mis DIM VI, mis DIM
o #oivioi #DIVIO! #DIVIOI 0 #DIVIO! 234.0 0.0214 281.6 0.017757546
0 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #DIVIOI 0 #OIVIOI 302.6 0.0165 360.2 0.013882519
0 #DIV/0! #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 0 #DIVIO! 334.5 0.0149 396.4 0.012613524
0 #DIVIO! #DIV/01 #DIVIO! 0 #DIVIOI 351.7 0.0142 416.0 0.012019917
o #DIVIO! #OIVIOI #DIVIO! 0 *DlVl0l 359.4 0.0139 424.6 0.011774443
0 #DIVIO! #DIV/01 #DIVIO! 0 #DIV/011 359.5 0.0139 424.8 0.01177072
0 401V10! #OIVIO! #DIVIO! 0 #DIV/01 363.4 0.0138 429.2 0.011650015
0 #DIVIO! #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 0 #DIVIOI 394.9 0.0127 464.7 0.010758928
0 #DIVIO! #DIVIOI #DIVIO! 0 #OIVIOI 399.8 0.0125 470.3 0.010632256
0 #DIVIO! #DIVIOI #OIVIO! 0 #DIVIO! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #DIVIO! #DIVIOI #OIV/01 0 #DIVIO! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #DIV/0! 0 #OIVIO! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #DIVIOI #DIV/01 #DIV/0I 0 #DIVIOI 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #DIVIOI #DIV/0' #0M01 0 #DIVIO! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #OIV/0! #DIVIO' #DIVIO! 0 #DIVIOI 402.7 0.0124 473.0 0.010557073
0 #0M01 #DIV! #DIV! 0 #O!V! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #OIVIO! #DMO! #DIVIO! 0 #DIVIO! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #0MG! #DIVIO! #DIVIO! 0 #DMO! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #DIVIO! #0MG! #DIVIO! 1 0 #DIVIO! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
0 #DIVID! #DIVIO! I #DIVIO! 0 #DIVID! 402.7 0.0124 473.6 0.010557073
V #DI VIOl I V #DI VIOl I V #DiV101 V. 370 437
mis 12 0I #DIVIOl #01vtoi CLASS C CLASS C
Project Quarry. Creek - Abut 1
Job No. 0713.5-42-04
Boring No. B-i (R-14-0Q1)
(N1)60 = (Nm)(CN)(CE)(CB)(CR)(CS)
Nm
CN
Hammer A D=D.onut; :SSafety, .A=Auto'
Diameter, in 4
Sampler S SStandard; Vhout.:Liners.
CE 1.31 0.5-1.0 (avg 0.75) for Donut; 0.7-1.2 (avg. 0.95) for Safety; 0.8-1.3 (avg 1.05) for Auto donut
CB 1.00 1.0 for <4.5"; 1.05 for 6"; 1.15 for 8"
CR
Cs . 1.0 1.0 for Standard sampler, 1.1-1.3 (avg 1.2) for sampler Without liners
I
Depth, ft P. Cr CN=(P3/o 'vo)AO.5
CN<=1.7
CN=2.21(1.2+a 'voIP3 )
for O'vo >4178 psf
CN CE CB CR Cs N. (N1)60
:5.. . 2089 625 1.70 1.47 - 1.70 1.31 1.00 0.75 1.00 '20.:5. 34
10. 2089 1250 1.29 1.22 1.29 1.31 1.00 0.75 1.00 160 20
• 15. • 2089 1875 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.31 _1 0.85 1.00 33.7 40
.20 2098 2500 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.31 1.00 0.95 100 .8:0_. 9
.25.. 2089 3125 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.31 _1 0.95 _1.00 .:6:O:. 6
30_• 2089 3688 0.75 0.74 0.75 _11 _10 0.95 _1.00 1:10. 10
.:315: 2089 4001 0.72 0.71 0.72 _1.31 1.00 0.95 .00 - 72 6
40, 2089 4314 0.70 0.67 0.70 _1.31 100 0.95 .00 - .1:00 87
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/01 _11 _1 0.75 .00 - 1:00. 111111!!!! : 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 _1 0.75 _1 100 1111111111
2090 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.00 0.75 1.00
: 2091 0 #DlV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 _1.00 0.75 1.00 . 1111111111
2092 0 #DIV/0' 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1.00 0.75 _100 . 111111!!!!
2093 0 #DlV/0' 1.83 #DlV/0 131 1.00 0.75 _1.00 : 11111111/!
2094 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DlV/0 1.31 1.00 0.75 1.00 .
..
1111111111
2095 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1 0.75 1.00 • i/Hill/il
2096 0 #DIV/0' 1.83 • #DIV/0 1.31 1.00 0.75 1.00 . lIllihIll
2097 0 #DIV/01 1.83 #DIV/0 131 1 0.75 1.00 ///fl//Jfl
45 2098 4627 0.67 0.65 0.67 131 1.00 0.95 1.00
..
0 .:
Caltrans online AIRS
Caltrans online ARS
Project Quarry Creek - Abut 1
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. B-i (R-14-001)
Maximum Credible Earthquake 6.9
Design Ground Motion 0.37 g
Total Unit Weight, y 125.0 pd
Buoyant Unit Weight, yfl 62.6 pd
Depth to Groundwater 1 291 it
Pitnr in I i. -f-ii- 1 I.l. ..4 Ci
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SPREADSHEET
Based on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEERINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils
ASCE Journal of Geoiechrrical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (Oct 2001 and March 2003)
Boring Data Type
of
Material
Total Vertical
Stress.psf
vo
Effective Vertical
Slress.psf
avo
Effective
Confining
Pressure
Corrected
SPT
(NI)go
Fines
Content
%
SPT Clean
Sands
(N1)
Cyclical
Resistance
CRR7.5
I(o
(YIN)
N
Magnitude
Scaling
Factor
Cyclical
Resistance
CRRM
Elastic -
Reduction
r
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
• Factor
of
Saf or ety
Depth
(ft) Total Density.
5 125.0 - 625 625 0.30 34 20 40 NI. 1.00 1.24 NI. 0.990 0.238 NI 10 125.0 1250 1250 0.60 20 20 26 0.304 1.00 1.24 0.377 0.979 0.235 NI. 15 125.0 1875 1875 0.90 40 20 46 NI. 1.00 1.24 NI. 0.969 0.233 NI.
20 125.0 2500 2500 1.20 9 20 13 0.145 1.00 1.24 0.180 -0.957 0.230 NI 25 125.0 3125 3125 1.50 6 . 20 10 0.115 1.00 1.24 0.142 0.942 0.227 NI 30 125.0 . 3750 3688 1.77 10 20 15 0.158 1.00 1.24 0.195 0.921 0.225 0.87
35 125.0 4375 4001 1.92 6 20 11 0.119 1.00 1.24 0.147 0.891 0.234 0.63
40 125.0 5000 4314 2.06 87 20 97 NI. 1.00 1.24 NI. 0.851 0.237 NI.
- - 125.0 0 - 0.00 #OIV/ot #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.00 0.00 #OIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NI.
- 125.0 0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DlV/ol #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DlV0l 1.000 #DIVIOI NI.
- 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIVIOI 8DIV/0! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NI.
125.0 0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIV/01 #0IVI01 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NI.
- 125.0 0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DlVI0t #DIVICI 1.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 1.000 #DIV/01_ NI.
- 125.0 0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIVIOI #DIVI0t 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DNI01 NI.
- 125.0 0 0 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #0lVI01 1.000 #DIV/0! NI.
0 125.0 0 - 0 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #DlVI01 1.00 0.00 #DIV/01 1.000 *DIVi0! NI. 45 125.0 5625 4621 2.21 0 0 0.049 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.804 0.235 0.00
Corrections to SPT (Modified from Skernoton. 19881 as Listed by Robertson and ¶Mide
Factor Equipment Variable I Term Correction
Overburden Pressure C5 (PJ&jt
___
Energy Ratio . Donut Hammer C5 0.5to1.0
Safety Hammer 0.7 to 1.2
Automatic-Trip Donut-Type Hammer 0.8to 1.3
Borehole Diameter 2.5 inch to 4.5 inch C5 1.0
6 Inch 1.05
8 Inch . 1.15
Rod length 10 feet to 13 feet C5 0.75
13 feet to 19.8 feet 0.85
19.8 feet to 33 feet . 0.95
33 feet t098feet 1.00
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs 1.00
Sampler withoutliners 1.1t o1.3
Nntes
For(N1)>30. CRR is reported as NI. (non-liquefiable)
Aboveground water table, factor of safety is reported asNI.
Magnitude _Scaling_(ldnss._revised)
MSF= 10 2 ,7.52
Chinese Building_ Code _Criteria
Percent finer than o.aosmm<= 15%
Liquid Limit. LI. Sr 35%
Natural Water Content >= 0.91-1-
Soil which satisfy all three criteriaare judgedvulnerable to liquefaction
U.S. Army Corn of Enaineers Corrections to Measured Properties
Decrease fines content by 5%
Increase liquid limit by 1%
Increase water content by 2%
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Based on Tokimatsu and Seed 1987
B-i (R-14-001)
Depth to
Top
of Layer
(ft)
Depth to
Bottom
of Layer
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
SPT Clean
Sands
(N,)6 0.s
Volumetric
Strain, %
Layer
Settlemen
(inches)
0 . . 5 5 0.238 40 ..: 0:.: 0.0
5 10 5 0.235 26 0. 0.0
__10 15 5 0.233 46 .'.0 0.0
15 20 5 0.230 13 1 2 12
.20 .. 25 5 0.227 10 ::::2.4 1.4
30 5 0.225 15 :1.8 1.1
30 • 35 5 0.234 ii 2.4_• _lj
35 • 0 -35 0.237 97 • 0.0
0 .. 0 0 0.000 0 0.0
0 0 0 0.000 0 : 0.0
0 .. 0 0 0.000 0 ••• _.: 0.0
Total 5.2
Volumetric Strain, %
0.6
0.5
0.4
Ix C,, 0.3
C-,
0.2
0.1
10543 2 I 0.5
—- —
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I S S I.°' -- I I S I IS ,
0.1
/, •9/
a, ,S
ix x
10 20 30 40 50
N160 Adj. for Fines (Blows/Ft)
Project Quarry. Creek - Abut 1
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. B-2 (R14-02)
(NI) r.0 (Nm)(CN)(CE)(CB)(CR)(CS)
Nm
CN
Hammer A D=Do.nut;:S=Safety;.A=Auto
Diameter, in 4 .
Sampler S. S=Standard; W-
-Without-Line-- CE 1.31 0.5-1.0 (avg 0.75) for Donut; 0.7-1.2 (avg. 0.95) for Safety; 0.8-1.3 (avg 1.05) for Auto donut
C8 1.00 1.0 for <4.5"; 1.05 for 6"; 1.15 for 8"
CR
Cs 1.0 1.0 for Standard sampler, 1.1-1.3 (avg 1.2) for sampler Without liners
I CN
Depth, ft Pa 'vo CN=(Pa/a 'vo)AO.5
CN<=1 .7
CN=2.21(1.2+a 'volP3 )
for O 'vo >4178 psf
CN CE CB CR Cs N. (N1)60
T5. 2089 625 1.70 1.47 _1.70 1.31 1.00 0.75 1.00 :.18:0 30
110 2089 1250 1.29 1.22 _129 131_ _1 0.75 _1.00 13.8 18
.115 2089 1875 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.31 1.00 0.85 1.00 :.i19O:: 22
.20:. 2098 2500 0.92 0.92 092 1.31 1.00 0.95 1.00 :15:0:. 17
25 •. 2089 3125 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.31 1.00 0.95 1.00 :::8:0:.: 8
315: 2089 4001 0.72 0.71 0.72 1.31 1.00 0.95 100 :Q2 9
.:40H. 2089 4314 0.70 0.67 0.70 131 _10 0.95 _1 H3O1 26
:45. 2089 4627 0.67 0.64 0.67 1.31 1.00 0.95 1.00 .100. 84
• 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 100 0.75 1.00 :1.00 IlfiffIfIl
_•.. 2089 0 #DIV/0I 1.83 #DIV/0I 1.31 1.00 0.75 100 :400 1111111111
•• 2090 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 • #DIV/0! 1 1.00 0.75 1.00 • #####
2091 2091 0 #DlV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0' 1.31 100 0.75 1.00
2092 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.00 0.75 1.00 • 1111111111
2093 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0' 1.31 1.00 0.75 100 .• 11111/11!!
2094 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 100 0.75 100 :1 ... 1111111111
_______ 2095 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1 100 0.75 _100
........1111111111
.. . #####
2096 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 100 0.75 1.00 : • . #####
2097 0 #DIV/0I 1.83 #DIV/01 1.31 1.00 0.75 100
45 2098 4627 0.67 0.65 0.67 1.31 1.00 0.95 1.00
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SPREADSHEET
Based on Liquefaction Resistance of Sods: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEERINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils
ASCE Journal of Geoteclinicat and Geoenwonmental Engineering (Oct 2001 and March 2003)
Protect Quarry Creek - Abut 1
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. 8-2 (R-14-002)
Maximum Credible Earthquake 6.9
Design Ground Motion 0.37 g
Total Unit Weight. y 125.0 pd
Buoyant Unit Waight, y,r 626 pd
Depth to Groundwater I 291 It
Caltrans online ARS
Caltrans online ARS
I Recislnne In I linn SIroo 1
°rtng Data Type
of
Material
Total Vertical
Stress,psf
cyvo
Effective Vertical
Stress.psf
avo
Effective
Confining
Pressure
Corrected
SPT
(N1)
Fines
Content
%
SPT Clean
Sands
(Nlhaa
Cyclical
Resistance
CRR7.s
Ka
(Y/N)
N
Magnitude
Scaling
Factor
Cyclical
Resistance
CRR
Elastic
Reduction
r4
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
Factor
of
Safely
Depth
(ft) Total Density,
5 125.0 625 625 0.30 30 20 36 NL 1.00 1.24 NL 0.990 0.236 NL
10 125.0 1250 1250 0.60 18 20 23 0.251 1.00 1.24 0.310 0.979 0.235 NL
15 125.0 1875 1875 0.90 22 20 28 0.362 1.00 1.24 0.448 0.969 0.233 NL
20 125.0 2500 2500 1.20 17 20 22 0.244 1.00 1.24 0.302 0.957 0.230 1 NL
25 125.0 3125 3125 1.50 8 1 20 12 1 0.135 1.00 1 1.24 0.167 0.942 0.227 NL
35 125.0 4375 4001 1.92 9 20 14 0.146 1.00 1.24 0.180 0.891 0.234 0.77
40 125.0 5000 4314 2.06 26 20 32 NL 1.00 1.24 NL 0.851 0.237 NL
45 125.0 - 5625 4627 2.21 84 20 94 NI. 1.00 1.24 NL 0.804 0.235 NI.
- - 125.0 0 0 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIV/ot #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #0lV/01 1.000 DlV/0' NL
- - 125.0 0 0 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #DIVIO' 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIO' NI.
125.0 0 0 0.00 #DlV/0t #DlVI01 #DlVI0' 1.00 0.00 #DIVI01 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
- - 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DlVI0I #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIV/0I 1.000 #DIVIO! NL
- - 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIVI0I #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DlV/ol - 1.000 #DIVIO! NL
- - 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIV/01 #OIVIO! #DlV/0' 1.00 0.00 #DIV/01 1.000 #D$VIO! NL
1250 - 0 - 0.00 #DlVl #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIV/01 .1.000 #DIVIOI NL
125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
45 125.0 5625 4627 2.21 0 0 0.049 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.804 0.235 0.00
Corrections to SPT lModifid from Skomnion 1991 an I islnd hi, R,tho,tsnn on,i t.fri,fo
Factor Equipment Variable I lent Correction
Overburden Pressure C
0.4cC5'°1 .7
Energy Ratio Donut Hammer CE 0.5to1.0
Safety Hammer 0.7 to 1.2
Automatic-Trip Donut-Typo Hammer 0.8 to 1.3
Borehole Diameter 2.5 inch 104.5 inch C5 1.0
6 Inch 1.05
8inch 1.15
Rod length 10 feet to 13 feet C5 0.75
l3 feet to 19.8 feet 085
198 feet 1o33f€ot .. . 0.95
33 feet to 98 feet 1.00
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs 100
Sampler without liners 1.1 to 1 3
Notes:
For (N1) 30, CRR is reported as NL (non-liquefiable)
Above ground water table, factor of safety is reported as NL
Magnitude Scaling (Idriss. revised
MSF = 10 22417.5250
Chinese Building Code Criteria
Percent finer than o.005mm CC 15%
Liquid Lotid, LI. < 35%
3 Natural Water Content x= 0.9L1
Soil which satisfy all three criteria are judged vulnerable to liquefaction
S. Anna Corp of Encsrieers Corrections to Measured Prooertir
Decroase I ifl03 content by 5%
Increase liquid limit by 1%
Increase water content by 2%
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Based on Tokimatsu and Seed 1987
B-2 (R-1 4-002)
Depth to
Top
of Layer
(ft)
Depth to
Bottom
of Layer
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
SPT Clean
Sands
(N,)60.
Volumetric
Strain, %
Layer
Settlement
(inches)
. 0:'..: 5 5 0.238 36 :: .0.' 0.0
5. 10 5 0.235 23 ::::0;21:::: 0.1
15 5 0.233 28 ::::.'Q.::: 0.0
15 20 5 0.230 22 021 01
20 . 25 5 0.227 12 . 2.2 . 13
25 30 5 0.234 14 2.1 1.3
30 ' • 35 5 0.237 32 ''0 ' 0.0
35 0 -35 0.235 94 0.0
0 0 0 0.000 0 0.0
0 0 0 0.000 0 0.0
01 0 0 0.000 0 , • 0.0
Total 2.8
Volumetric Strain, %
0.6
0.5
0.4
Ix 0.3 '3
0.2
0.1
0543 2
02
0.1
x x
0 10 20 30 40 50
N1160 Adj. for Fines (Blows/Ft)
Project Quarry Creek - Abut 1
Job No. 07135-:42-04
Boring No. B-9 (A-14-009)
(N1)60 = (Nm)(CN)(CE)(CB)(CR)(CS)
Nm
CM
Hammer A D=Donut; .SSafety;.A=Auto
Diameter, in 6.
Sampler S, S=StandarØ; WWithciutLiners
CE 1.34 0.5-1.0 (avg 0.75) for Donut; 0.7-1.2 (avg. 0.95) for Safety; 0.8-1.3 (avg 1.05) for Auto donut
C8 1.15 1.0 for <4.5"; 1.05 for 6"; 1.15 for 8"
CR
Cs 1.0 1.0 for Standard sampler, 1.1-1.3 (avg 1.2) for sampler Without liners
I CN
Depth, ft Pa a 'vo CN=(Pa/a 'vo)^O.5
CN<=1.7
CN=2.21(1.2+a 'VO/Pa) CM
for cY 'vo >4178 psf
CE CB CR Cs Nm (N1)60
:,. 5 2089 625 1.70 1.47 1.70 1.34 1.15 0.75 1.00 ::25;1. 49
10 2089 1250 1.29 1.22 1.29 _14 1:15 1 0.75 _1;2_.:0 13
2089 1875 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.34 1.15 0.85 1.00 :16.2:: 22
20 . 2098 2500 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.34 1:15 0.95 1.00 .:37;9: 51
25 . 2089 3125 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.... 1.15 0.95 1.00 .15:6:; 19
'30 2089 3750 0.75 0.73 0.75 _1_ _115 0.95 1 :9.0::: io
:35 2089 4375 0.69 0.67 0.69 1.34 1.15 0.95 1.00 : 9.0: 9
40 2089 .4813 0.66 0.63 . 0.66 1.34 1.15 0.95 - 1.00. :5;9:: 35
45 2089 - 5126 - 0.64 0.60 0.64 _1 _1.15 0.95 1.00::59:9:. 56
50 2089 5439 0.62 0.58 0.62 1.34 _1.15 0.95 _12 .100 91
2090 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/O! 1.34 1.15 0.75 1.00
. . -- - 1.83 #DiV/0! 134 1.15 0.75 1.00
2092 0 #DIV/0! : 1.83 #D)V/0! 1.34 1.15 0.75 1.00 : . 1111111111
2093 ' 0 #DIV/0I 1.83 #DIV/0I 134 1.15 0.75 _1 . __... 11111111!!
2094 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1 1.34 1.15 0.75 1.00 ...: 1111111111
#DVIO! 1.83 #DIV/0' 1.34 1 1.15 0.75 _12 .•. 1111111111
2096 0 #DIV/0! .1.83 #DIV/0' 1.34 1.15 0.75 _1.00 11111111!!
2097 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 134 1.15 0.75 1.00 : H '. 1111111111
45 2098 5126 0.64 0.60 0.64 1.34 1.15 0.95 1.00
..'
0
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SPREADSHEET
Based on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEERINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvirorvnental Engineering (Oct 2001 and March 2003)
Project Quarry Creek - Abut 1
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. 8-9 (A-14-009)
Maximum Credible Earthquake 6.9
Design Ground Motion 0.37 g
Total Unit Weight, y, 125.0 pd
Buoyant Unit Weight, y,.., 62.6 pcf
Depth to Groundwater I 371 It
Callrans online ARS
Caltrans online ARS
I •, I .,.. .f...;... ... .4 0•......
Boring Data Type
of
Material
Total Vertical
Stresspsf
o
Effective Vertical
Slress.psf
Ova
Effective
Confining
Pressure
Corrected
SPT
(N1)
Fines
Content
%
SPT Clean
Sands
(NO80.
Cyclical
Resistance
CRRM,s
- - - Ka - -
(YIN)
N
Magnitude
Scaling
Factor
Cyclical
Resietanco
CRRu
Elastic
Reduction
rd
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
Factor
of
Safety
Depth
(ft) Total Density, pd
5 125.0 625 625 0.30 49 20 57 Nt. 1.00 1.24 NL 0.990 0.238 NI
10 125.0 1250 1250 0.60 13 20 18 0.193 1.00 1.24 0.239 0.979 0.235 NI.
15 125.0 1875 1875 0.90 22 20 28 0.360 1.00 1.24 0.446 0.969 0.233 NL
20 125.0 2500 2500 1.20 '51 20' 58 NL 1.00 1.24 NI 0.957 0.230 NL 25 1 125.0 3125 3125 1.50 19 20 24 0.269 1.00 1.24 0.332 0.942 0.227 NI. 30 125.0 3750 3750 1.80 10 20 14 0.152 1.00 1.24 0.188 0.921 0.221 NI.
35 125.0 4375 4375 2.09 9 20 13 0.145 1.00 1.24 0.179 0.891 0.214 NL 40 125.0 5000 4813 2.30 35 20 41 Nt. 1.00 1.24 Nt. 0.851 0.213 NL 45 125.0 5625 5126 2.45 56 20 64 Nt. 1.00 1.24 NI. 0.804 0.212 - Nt.
50 125.0 6250 5439 2.60 91 20 102 Nt. 1.00 1.24 NI. 0.753 0.208 NI
- - - 125.0 - - 0.00 #DIVIO! #DIVg'Of #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIO! NI.
- - 125.0 - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #OIV/0I #DIV/0I 1.00 0.00 #OIVIO! 1.000 #OIVIO! NI.
- - 125.0 - - - - - 0.00 #DIWO! #OIV/0! #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIV/ol 1.000 #OlVi'Ol NI.
- 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #OIV/01 #DIWOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIV/01 1.000 #DIV/OI NI.
- 125.0 - - .0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI #DIVFOI 1.00 0.00 #lVI0! 1.000 #OIV/01 NI.
- - 125.0 0 0 0.00 #D$VIOI #DIVIOI #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIV/01 NL
- - 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 401V/01 NI.
- - 125.0 - - -. 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIV/0I 1.000 #DIV/OI NI
45 125.0 5625 5126 2.45 0' 0' 0.049 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.804 0.212 0.00
Corrections to SPT (Modified from Skemoton 19881 as 1istad by Rthertsnn and V*id
Factor Equipment Variable I Term Correction
Overburden Pressure . C5 (PJ0'j5
0.4<Cc=1.7
Energy Ratio . Donut Hammer CIE 0.51o1.0
Safety Hammer . 0.710 1.2
- Automatic-Trip Donut-Tye.Hammer - 0.8 to 1.3
Borehole Diameter 2.5 inch to 4.5 inch C5 1.0
6 inch 1.05
8 inch - 1.15
Rod length 10 feet to 13 feet C5 0.75
l3 feet tol9.8feet 0.85
19.8 fret to 33 foe' 0.05
33 feet to98feet 1.00
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs 1.00
Sampler without liners 1.1 101.3
Notes:
For (N,), >30, CRR is reported as NI. (non-liquefiable)
Above ground water table, factor of safety is reported as NL -
Magnitude Scalino (Idnss. revisedi
MSF = 10 2.24 2
94ild Code Criterie
Percent finer than o.005mmss15%
Liquid Limit. LL <=
Natural Water Content >= 0.91.1-
Sail which satisfy all three criteria are judged vulnerable to liquefaction
U.S. Army Coro of Engineers Corrections to Measured Properties
etese fines zahtent by 5%
Increase liquid limit byl%
Increase water content by 2%
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Based on Tokimatsu and Seed 1987
B-9 (A-14-009)
Depth to
Top
of Layer
(ft)
Depth to
Bottom
of Layer
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(II)
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
SPT Clean
Sands
(N1)65
Volumetric
Strain, %
Layer
Settlemen
(inches)
0. 5 5 0.238 57 .0 : 0.0
5 0.235 18 :. 1.4 0.8
I lip.: _1_ 5 0.233 28 :_.0 1 0.0
15 20 5 0230 58 0 00
..5...._1
20 25 5 0.227 24 0.12 0.1
25 30 5 0.221 14 .• .1.2
30 35 5 0.214 13 . •205" 1
1.35. 40 5 0.213 41 0.0
40 45 5 0.212 64 .0::.. 0.0 -
4e5 • 0 -45 0.208 102 : 0.0
o . 0 0 0.000 0 .::..: 0.0
• •
________
Total 3.3
Volumetric Strain, %
0.6
0.5
0.4
u, 0.3
C-)
0.2
0.1
0543 2 I 0.5
02
- - - - -
J.i•
f f,t',/
0.1
-
x
0 10 20 30 40 50
N, 160 Adj. for Fines (Blows/Ft)
Project Quarry Creek - Pier 2
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. 8-3 (A-14-003)
(N1)60 = (Nm)(CN)(CE)(CB)(CR)(CS)
Nm
CN
Hammer A D=Donut, .SSafety, A=Auto
Diameter, in 8 . .:
Sampler S S=Standard W=Wthout Liners
CE 1.31 0.5-1.0 (avg 0.75) for Donut; 0.7-1.2 (avg. 0.95) for Safety; 0.8-1.3 (avg 1.05) for Auto donut
CO 1.15 1.0 for <4.5"; 1.05 for 6"; 1.15 for 8"
CR
Cs 1.0 1.0 for Standard sampler, 1.1-1.3 (avg 1.2) for sampler Without liners
I CN
Depth, ft Pa o'vo CN=(Pa/aVO)AO.5
CN<=1.7
CN=2.21(1.2+a'VOIPa) CN CE
for O'vo >4178 psf
CB CR Cs Nm (N1)60
5. 2089 .625 1.70 1.47 1.70 Th"T Thi" 0.75 1'5" 84: 16
10 2089 1 1250 1.29 1.22 1.29 1 1.31 -1:15 0.75 15
5 2089 1563 1A6 1.13 1.16 131 1:15 0.85 1.00 12
.20. 2098 1876 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.31 1:15 0.95 _1.00 108
25 2089 2189 0.98 0.98 140
•
0.98 1.31 1:15 0.95
1000
-.7-1:2:
1.00
30 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 100
2089
#DlV/0! 1.31 1:15 0.95
0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0' 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 1111111111
:40. 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 . #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00
45' 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 .: .
. : flfjj//fl/
50 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 111111/111
2090 0 #DlV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 • .. :: 1111111/11
2091 ti 4DM0! ' 1.63 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 •• 1111111111
2092 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 • 1/11111111
2093 0 #DIV/0' 1.83 #DIV/0' 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 .::.. 111111/111
2094 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1:15 0.75 1.00 . 1111111111
.•5 39 .•
... .tV/o' '1' #DIV/0 1.31 T.15 0.75 1.00 _____: 1111111111
2096 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0 _1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00
2097 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00. ::'.. 1111111111
45 2098 3441 0.78 0.77 0.78 1.31 1:15 0.95 1.00
. ......1111111111
.. 0
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SPREADSHEET
Based on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1096 NCEER and 1998 NCEERINSF Wotkshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Sods
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (Oct 2001 and March 2003)
Project lQuarry Creek - Pier 2
Job No. 07135-42.04
Boring No. 8-3 (A-14.003)
Maximum Credible Earthquake 6.9
Design Ground Motion 0.37 9 Total Unit Might, y . 125.0 pcI
Buoyant Unit Waight, yff 62.6 pal
Depth to Groundwater j io It
Callrans online ARS
Caltrans online ARS
Boring Data Type
of
Material
Total Vertical
Stress,pst
ovo
Effective Vertical
Stress,psf
vo'
Effective
Contning
Pressure
Corrected
SPT
(NI)GO
Fines
%
Content Resistance
Cyclical
CRRM,s
- - - Ka - -
(YIN)
N
Scaling
Factor
Elastic
Reduction
rd
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
Factor
of
Safety
Depth
(fl) Total Density,
5 125.0 625 625 0.30 16 20 0.229
E(NI)60.
1.00 1.24
Magnitude
fl
O.
R
0.990 0.238 NI 10 125.0 1250 1250 0.60 15 20 0.208 1.00 1.24 0.979 0.235 1.09 15 125.0 1875 1563 0.75 12 20 0.182 1.00 1.24 0.969 0.279 0.80
20 125.0 2500 1876 0.90 108 20 NL 1.00 1.24 0.957 0.307 NI 25 125.0 3125 2189 1.05 140 1 20 155 1 NL 1.00 1.24 NI 0.942 1 0.323 NI 125.0 0 0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DIV/01 I #DIV/0! 1.00 1.24 #OIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
125.0 0 0 - 0.00 #DIVIO! 20 #DIVIO! #0lVl01 1.00 1.24 #DIV/01 1.000 #DNIO! NI
125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIV/0I 20 #DIVIO! #DIV/ol 1.00 1.24 #DlVI01 1.000 #DIV/01 NI. 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DlVI01 #DIV/01 1.00 1.24 #DIV/01 1.000 #DIVIO! NL 125.0 - 0 - - 0.00 #DIV/01 20 #DlVI0l #D1V10! 1.00 1.24 IDIV/01 1.000 #DIVIO! NI.
o 125.0 0 0 0.00 #DIV/0I #DIVIO! #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIO! NI. 0 125.0 - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DlVI0l NI.
0 125.0 0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIV/01 #DlV/01 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIV/0I NI.
0 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIVIOI #OIV/0! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIV/0I NI. 0 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DlV/01 #DIV/0' #Drvlol 1.00 0.00 #D1V101 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
0 125.0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DlVI01 #OIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DlVI0l 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
0 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #0lVI0! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #OlVI0l NI 0 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIO! #DIVIO' #0lV!0l 1.00 0.00 #OIVIO! I 1.000 #DIVIOI NI.
45 125.0 5625 3ee1 1.65 0 0 0.049 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.804 0.316 0.00 1
If
Cnrraxlinn' In PT IMnd.fiwr frnni krennfnn 1OI I In.I n, Pnhi.,.n ,n.4 U'hkI
Factor Equçment Variable I Term Correction
Overburden Pressure CN (PJ&)°5
0.4CC5<rl.7
Energy Ratio Donut Hammer . CE 0.5 to 1.0
Safety Hammer 0.7 to 1.2
Autcmgtic-Tnp Dcrt-eHmwr . 08 to 1.3
Borehole Dia'meter 2.5 inch to 4.5 inch C0 1.0
6 inch 1.05
8 inch 1.15
Rod length l0 feet tol3feet CR 0.75
13 feet to 19.8 feet 0.85
19.8fnt33feit . .. , . . . 0.95
33 feet to 98 feet 1.00
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs 1.00
Sampler without liners . 1.110 1.3
Notes:
For (N,) x 30. CRR is reported as NI (non-liquefiable)
Above ground water table, factor of safety Is reported as NI.
Magnitude Scaling (Idriss. revised)
MSF=1022I7.5 2ss
Q1ti%fiujldinn Cbde Critøria
Percent finer than 0.005mm'=15%
Liquid limit. LI. < 35%
Natural Water Content x= 0.911
Soil which satisfy all three criteria are judged vulnerable to liquefaction
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Corrections to Measured Procerties
0--nra8a Fnc content by 5%
Increase liquid limit by 1%
Increase water content by 2%
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Based on Tokimatsu and Seed 1987
B-3 (A-14-003)
Depth to
Top
of Layer
(ft)
Depth to
Bottom
of Layer
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
SPT Clean
Sands
(N1)60
Volumetric
Strain, %
Layer
Settlemen
(inches)
0. • 5 5 0.238 21 1.05. 0.6
5 10 5 0.235 19 1.2 0.7
:10.:.. 15 5 0.279 17 1.7 1.0
15 20 5 0307 120 0 00
25 5 0.323 155 . : 0.: 0.0
:25 : • 30 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.0
35 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0' 0.0
35 40 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! :...: 0.0
.40 45 5 #DIV/O! #DIV/0! . : 0.0
45 0 -45 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
.0 0 0 0.000 0
Total 2.4
Volumetric Strain, %
0.6
0.5
0.4
ci, 0.3 C.,
0.2
0.1
0543 2 1 0.5
I /
, 0.1
L...
10 20 30 40 50
N1160 Adj. for Fines (Blows/Ft)
Project Quarry Creek- Pier.2
Job No. 07135-42-04:
Boring No. 6-4 (A-14-004)
(N1)60 = (Nm)(CN)(CE)(CB)(CR)(CS)
Nm
CN
Hammer A ..... :D=Do.nut, :S=Safety, A=Auto..
Diameter, in 8 . .
Sampler S . $StanarØ;W=WthQut:Liners.
CE 1.31 0.5-1.0 (avg 0.75) for Donut; 0.7-1.2 (avg. 0.95) for Safety; 0.8-1.3 (avg 1.05) for Auto donut
CB 1.15 1.0 for <4.5"; 1.05 for 6"; 1.15 for 8"
CR
Cs 1.0 1.0 for Standard sampler, 1.1-1.3 (avg 1.2) for sampler Without liners
I CN I
Depth, ft Pa Cr 'vo CN=(Pa/O 'vo)AO.5
CN<=1 .7 .
CN=2.21(1.2+o 'VO/P a)
for 0 'vo >4178 psf
CN CE
1 1
CB CR Cs
1
Nm (N1)60
5 2089 625 1.70 1.47 170 iT "Tir 0.75 1.00 :10:2:' 20
10 2089 1250 1.29 1.22 1.29 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 9Q 13
15 2089 1563 1.16 1.13 1.16 1.31 1.15 0.85 1.00 .i:o.2H 15
20 2098 1876 1.06 1.05 1 1 1.15 0.95 1.00 .1.90:: 29
25 2089 2189 0.98 0.98 0.98 11_ 1.15 0.95 1.00 100.3.: 140
30 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 _1.15 0.95 1.00
5 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/ 1.31 _1.15 0.95 1.00 H:HH 1111111!!!
4.0 ... 2089 0 . #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/ 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 ::::: 1111111111
.4.5 2089 - 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/ 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 : 1111111111
.50 2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/ 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 : :: 1111111111
2090 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 .:..::j: 1111111111
2091 0 - #DIV/0! 1.83 #####
#DIV/0! 1.31 _i.15 0.75 _12 .::::
..
2092 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00
2093 0 . #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0' 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 .111111/111
2094 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 - #DIV/0I 1.3 1.15 0.75 1.00 ::: 11/1111111
2095 0 #DIV/0! - 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 11111111!!
2096 0 #DIV/0! . 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 .0.75 1.00 H: /111111111
2097 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DlV/0' 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 ::.
..
/111111111 4:5 2098 3441 0.78 0.77 0.78 _11_ _1.15 0.95 1.00 :. . : . 0
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SPREADSHEET
Based on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEERJNSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (Oct 2001 and March 2003)
Protect Quarry Creek - Pier 2
Job No. 0713542-04
Boring No. 13-4 (A-14-004)
Maismum Credible Earthquake 6.9
Design Ground Motion 0.37 g
Total Unit Weight, y 125.0 pci
Buoyant Unit Weight. y< 66 pci
Depth to Groundwater I 101 It
Caltrans online ARS
Cafirans online AIRS
I Rncitnnra en I in, ,ninrl.nn 1- .,..4 I
Roring Data Type
of
Material
Total Vertical
Stress,psf
Crvo
Effective Vertical
Stresspsf
Ovd
Effective
Confining
Pressure
Corrected
SPT
(N,)
Fines
Content
%
SPT Clean
Sands
(Ne)ser,
Cyclical
Resistance
CRR75
Kg -
(YIN)
N
Magnitude
Scaling
Factor
Cyclical
Resistance
CRR.
Elastic
Reduction
rd
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
Factor
of
Safety
Depth
(ft) Total Density. pd
5 125.0 625 625 0.30 20 20 25 0.288 100 1.24 0.357 0.990 0.238 NL 10 125.0 1250 1250 0.60 13 20 18 0.190 1.00 1.24 0.235 0.979. 0.235 1.00 15 125.0 1875 1563 0.75 15 20 20 0.215 1.00 1.24 0.266 0.969 0.279 0.95
20 125.0 2500 1876 0.90 29 20 35 NL 1.00 1.24 NI 0.957 0.307 NI
25 125.0 3125 2189 1.05 140 20 155 NL 1 1.00 1.24 NL 0.942 0.323 NL
125.0 - 0 0.00 #DIV/0! 20 #DIVIOI #DlVI01 1.00 1.24 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
125.0 - 0 0.00 #DlV/01 20 #DIVIO! #OlV/ot 1.00 1.24 #OlVI01 1.000 #DlV/ol NI
125.0 . - 0 0.00 #DlV/0! 20 #DlVI01 #DIVIO! 1.00 1.24 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIO! Nt.
125.0 0 0.00 #DlVI01 20 - #DIVIO! DIV/O! 1.00 1.24 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI Nt.
125.0 - - 0 0.00 #DIVIO! 20 . #olVlol #DWIOI 1.00 1.24 #DlVI01 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
125.0 - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #DMO! 1.00 0.00 #0lVI01 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIO! #DIVIO! #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
125.0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIO' #DIVIO! 100 0.00 #DtV/0I 1.000 #DIV/of NI
- - 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #OIV/0! #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #D$VIOI 1.000 #DIV/01 NI
- - 125.0 - - - 0.00 #0lV/01 #DIVIO' #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIV/0! NL
- 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DlVI0t NI
125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIO! #DIVIO' #DIVIO' 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIV/0' NI
- - 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #DlVI01 #DIVIO! HOly/Of 1.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 1.000 HOIVIOl NL
45 125.0 5625 3441 1.65 0 0 0.049 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.804 0.316 0.00
Corrections to SPT (Modified from Skemoton. 19261 as Listed by Robertson and Wide
Factor Equipment Variable I Term Correction
Overburden Pressure C. (PJ0'j5
0.4CC5<=1.7
Energy Ratio Donut Hammer •. CE 0.5 to 1.0
Safety Hammer . 0.7 to 1.2
-- Automatic-Trip Donut-Type Hammer . 0.8to1.3
Borehole Diameter 2.5 inch t04.5inch C0 1.0
6 inch 1.05
8 inch 1.15
Rod length 10 feel 1013 feet C0 0.75
13 feet to 19.8 feel 0.85
19.8 levi to 33 feet - . 0.95
33 feet to 98 feet 1.00
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs 1.00
'ampler without liters 1.1to1.3
Notes:
For (N) 30, CRR is reported as NI (non-liquefiable)
Aboveground water table,factor of safetyis reported asNL
Magnitude _Scalina_(Idriss._revised)
MSF=102 I7.5Ste
Chit .lose BuildingCpde Criteria.
Percent finer than 0.005 mm <= 15%
Liquid Limit. IL <=35%
Natural Water Content > 0.911
Soil which satisfy all three criteria are judged vulnerable to liquefaction
U.S.Army Corn of Engineers _Corrections to Measured Progenies
I. 0ocroaso fines ontenthy5%
Increase liquid limit by 1%
Increase water content by 2%
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Based on Tokimatsu and Seed 1987
B-4 (A-14-004)
Depth to
Top
of Layer
(ft)
Depth to
Bottom
of Layer
I (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
SPT Clear
Sands
(N,)60.(inches)
Volumetric
Strain, %
Layer
Settlemen
0. ... 5 5 0.238 25 . 0.12 :: 0.1
5: _10_ 5 0.235 18 1.5 : 0.9
_10 _15_ 5 0.279 20 IA 0.8
.15 20 5 0.307 35 .0 0.0
25 5 0.323 155 0 0.0
25 30 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! . . : 00
0 35 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.0
35 40 5 #DIV/0' #DIV/0' 00
40 . 45 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! :: :: : 0.0
45 0 -45 #DIV/0' #DIV/0! :. :: 0.0
0 0 . 0 0.000 0 •••: 0.0
. . Total 1.8
Volumetric Strain, %
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
C)
0.2
0.1
'0543 2 I 0.5
02
1 '1
a 0.1 I • i I".
x
10 20 30 40 50
N1IAdj. for Fines (Blows/Ft)
Project Quarry Creek - Pier 3
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. B-5 (A-14-005)
(N1)60 = (Nm)(CN)(CE)(CB)(CR)(CS)
NM
CN
Hammer A D=Donut, S=Safety, A=Auto
Diameter, in 8
Sampler S S=Standard; W--Without Liners
CE 1.31 0.5-1.0 (avg 0.75) for Donut; 0.7-1.2 (avg. 0.95) for Safety; 0.8-1.3 (avg 1.05) for Auto donut
CB 1.15 1.0 for <4.5"; 1.05 for 6"; 1.15 for 8"
CR
Cs 1.0 1.0 for Standard sampler, 1.1-1.3 (avg 1.2) for sampler Without liners
I CN I
Depth, ft P. a 'vo CN(Pala 'vo)"O.5
CN<=1.7
CN=2.21(1.2+a 'VO/Pa) CN CE
for 0 'vo >4178 psf
CB CR Cs N. (N1)60
5 2089 625 1.70 1.47 1.70 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 9.0 17
8 2089 875 1.54 1.36 1.54 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 100.3 1 175
10 2089 1000 1.45 1.31 1.45 131 1:15 0.75 1.00 100.0 163
2098 0 #DIV/0I 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2089 0 #DIV/0' 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 /111111111
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DlV/0' 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 ______ 1111111111
2089 0 #DlV/0I 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1:15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2089 0 #DIV/0' 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1:15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/01 1.31 1:15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2090 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2091 0 #DIVIO! 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2092 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DlV/0 1.31 1.15 0.75 100 1111111111
2093 0 #DIV/0I 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2094 0 #DIV/0' 1.83 #DIV/0 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 11/1111111
2095 0 #0I1-1/0' 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 .1111111/il
2096 0 #DIV/0' 1.83 #DIV/0I 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00
2097 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 ______ 1111111111
45 2098 3191 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SPREADSHEET
Based on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1998 NCEER and 1998 NCEERINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (Oct 2001 and March 2003)
Project Quarry Creek - Pier 3
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. 8-5 (A-14-0O5)
Maximum Credible Earthquake 6.9
Design Ground MotIon 0.37 g
Total Unit Weight, y 125.0 pd
Buoyant Unit Weight, y 62.6 pd
Depth to Groundwater I 61 It
Catrans online ARS
Caltrans online ARS
oring Data Type
of
Mall
Total Vertical
Stress,psf
avo
Effective Vertical
Stress,psf
ovo'
Effective
Confining
Pressure
Corrected
SPT
(N1)
Fines
Content
%
SF T Clean
an
(N1),
Cyclical
Resistance
CRRM,s
Ka
(YIN)
N
Magnitude
Scaling
Factor
Cyclical
Resistance
CRRM
Elastic --
Reduction
rd
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
Factor•
of
Safety
Depth
(ft)
. Total Density, pd
5 125.0 625 625 0.30 17 20 22 0.247 1.00 1.24 0.305 0.990 0.238 NI
8 125.0 1000 875 - 0.42 175 20 193 NI 1.00 1.24 NI 0.983 0.270 NL _10_ 125.0 1250 1000 0.48 163 20 180 NL 1.00 1.24 NI 0.979 0.294 NI
- - 125.0 - 0 0 - 0.00 #DtV/01 20 #DtVI0l #DtVI01 1.00 1.24 1 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
- - 125.0 0 1 - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 4OlVI0? #DIVIOI 1.00 1.24 #DtVI0I 1.000 #DIVIO! NL
- 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #0IV/01 20 #DIVIO! #DIVIOI 1.00 1.24 #DIVIO' 1.000 #DIVIO! NI
- 125.0 0 0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DIVIOI #DIV/0I 1.00 1.24 #OIV/01 1.000 #DIVIO! NI.
- - 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIVI01 20 #DIVIO! #DIVIOI 1.00 1.24 #OIV/0! 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
0. 125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #OlVs'Ot #DIVIOI 1.00 1.24 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIO! NL
125.0 0 - - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DIVIO! #DlVI01 1.00 1.24 #DIVIOI 1.000 • #DIV/01 NL
0 125.0 0 0 0.00 #DIVIOI #DtVI0t #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIV/0I NI
0 125.0 - A - - 0.00 #DtVI0t #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DtVI0l 1.000 #DIV/0I NI
0 125.0
-
a - - 0.00 #DtV/0' 4DIV/0! #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DlVI01 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
0 125.0 - - 0.00 #DlVI0t #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
0 125.0 - - 0.00 #DIV/0I #DIVIOI #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
0 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI 4DtV/01 #DIV/01 1.00 0.00 #DIV/0I 1.000 #DMOI NI
0 125.0 0 ' 0.00' #DIVIO! #DIVIOI #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DtVI01 NI
0 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIO! #DIVIOI #DIV/01 1.00 0.00 #OIVIOI 1.000 #OtVI0l - NI 45 125.0 - 5625 3191 1.53 0 0 0.049 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.804 0.341 0.00
Corrections to SPT (Modified from Skamoton 19RSt as listed his Rnhertcnn and %Misth
Factor Equipment Variable I Term Correction
Overburden Pressure CN- (PJo'5,)°5
0.4cC5c=1.7
Energy Ratio Donut Hammer CE 0.5 to 1.0
Safety Hammer 0.7 to 1.2
Atomatic-Trtp Donut-Type Hammer 0.8 to 1.3
Borehole Diameter 2.5 inch 104.5inch Ce 1.0
6 inch 1.05
8 inch 1.15
Rod length lo feet tol3feet . cot 0.75
l3 feet to 19.8 feet 0.85
19.8 feet to33feet 0.55
33 feet to 98 feet 1.00
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs 1.00
Sanipterwithout liners 1.1 to 1.3
Notes:
For (N,),> 30, CRR is reported as NI (non-liquefiable)
Above ground water table, factor of safety is reported as NI
Magnitude Scalino (idriss. revised)
MSF-1022417.5 2'°
Chinese Building Code Criteria
Percent finer than o.ao5mmc=15%
Liquid 10774, II 35%
Natural Water Content > 0.911
Soil which satisfy all three criteria are judged vulnerable to liquefaction
U.S. Army Corp of Ennineers Corrections to Measured Pr000rtlea
Decrease fines content by 5%
Increase liquid limit by 1%
Increase water content by 2%
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Based on Tokimatsu and Seed 1987
B-5 (A-14-005)
Depth to
Top
of Layer
(ft)
Depth to
Bottom
of Layer
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
SPT Clean
Sands
(N1)6
Volumetric
Strain, %
Layer
Settlement
(inches)
0 5 5 0.238 22 0.4 0.2
5 10 5 0.270 193 0.0
10 15 5 0.294 180 0.0
15 20 5 #DIVIO! #DIV/0! 0.0
20 25 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.0
25 30 5 #DIV/0! #DlV/0' 0.0
30 35 5 #DIV/OI #DIVIO' 0.0
35 40 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0' 0.0
40 45 5 #DIV/0I #DIV/0! 0.0
45 0 -45 #DIV/0I #DIV/0! 0.0
0 0 0 0.000 0 0.0
1* 1 Total 0.2
Volumetric Strain, %
0.6
0.5
0.4
Ix Cl) 0.3
C.)
0.2
0.1
0543 2 I 0.5
I 'I
0.1
- - - -
0 10 20 30 40 50
NjI60 Adj. for Fines (Blows/Ft)
Project Quarry Creek - Pier 3 Hammer A D=Donut, S=Safety, AAuto
Job No. 07135-42-04 Diameter, in 8
Boring No. B-6 (A-14-006) Sampler S S=Standard; W=Without Liners
(N1)60 = (Nm)(CN)(CE)(CB)(CR)(CS)
Nm
CN
CE 1.31 0.5-1.0 (avg 0.75) for Donut; 0.7-1.2 (avg. 0.95) for Safety; 0.8-1.3 (avg 1.05) for Auto donut
CB 1.15 1.0 for <4.5; 1.05 for 6"; 1.15 for 8"
CR
Cs 1.0 1.0 for Standard sampler, 1.1-1.3 (avg 1.2) for sampler Without liners
I CN
Depth, ft Pa a 'vo CN(Pa!a 'vo)"O.5
CN<=1.7
CN=2.21(1.2+a 'VOIPa)
for 0_'vo>4178psf
CN CE CB CR Cs N. (N1)60
5 2089 625 1.70 1.47 1.70 1.31 1.15 0.75 100 9.0 17
10 2089 969 1.47 1.32 1.47 1.31 - .15 1 0.75 100 67.0 1 111
15 2089 1282 1.28 1.21 1.28 1.31 - .15 0.85 100 100.0 163
20 2098 1595 1.15 1.12 1.15 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 100.0 164
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00
2089 0 #DIV/01 1.83 #DIV/0' 1.31 -1:15 1 0.75 1.00
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00
2089 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 ______ 1111111111
2090 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 11111111/1
2091 0 #DlV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1•34 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2092 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2093 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/O! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2094 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2095 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/01 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 11111111/I
2096 0 #DIV/0l 1.83 #DlV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
2097 0 #DIV/0! 1.83 #DIV/0! 1.31 1.15 0.75 1.00 1111111111
45 2098 3160 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.31 1.15 0.95 1.00 ______ 0
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SPREADSHEET
Based on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEERINSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (Oct 2001 and March 2003)
Project lQuarry Crook - Pier 3
Job No. 07135-42-04
Boring No. 8.6 (A-14-006)
Maximum Credible Earthquake 6.9
Design Ground Motion 0.37 g
Total Unit Weight. y 125.0 pcf
Buoyant Unit Weight. yq, 62.6 pcf
Depth to Groundwater I 5.51 It
Caltrans online ARS
Caltrarts online ARS
I Rnnnien,e in i ,fe.'iinn I 1n,4,..- Si
oring Data Type
of
Material
Total Vertical
Stress.psf
Ovo
Effective Vertical
Stress.psf
avO
Effective
Confining
Presume
Corrected
SPT
(N)
Fines
Content
%
SPT Clean
Sands
(N)
Cyclical
Resistance
CRRmy_s
Ka
(YIN)
N
Magnitude
Scaling
Factor
Cyclical
Resistance
CRR
Elastic
Reduction
r1
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
Factor•
of
Safety
Depth
00Total Density,
5 125.0 625 625 0.30 17 20 22 0.247 1.00 1.24 0.305 0.990 0.238 NL
10 125.0 1250 969 0.46 111 20 124 NL 1.00 1.24 NL 0.979 0.304 NI
15 125.0 1875 1282 0.61 163 20 180 NI 1.00 1.24 NI 0.969 0.341 NL
20 125.0 2500 1595_ 0.76 164 20 181 NI 1.00 1.24 NL 0.957 0.361 NL
125.0 . 0 1 0 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DIVIOI I #DIVIOI 1.00 1 1.24 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
- - 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DIVIOI #DlVI01 1.00 1.24 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
- - 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! 100 1.24 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
- - 125.0 - - 0.00 1 #OtVlol 20 #DIVIOI #DlVI01 1.00 1.24 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
- 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DlVIDl 20 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 1.24 #DtVI0t 1.000 #DlVI01 NL
- - 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI 20 #DIVIOI #DIVIOt 1.00 1.24 #DtVI01 1.000 #DlVI0t NL
125.0 #DIVIO! #DlVI01 #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIO! NI
- 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #DlV101 #DIVIOI #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
- - 125.0 _0 - - - 0.00 #DlVI0t #DIVIOI #DIVIO! 1.00 0.00 #DIVIOI 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
- - 125.0 - - -. - 0.00 #DlVI01 #DlVI01 #DIVIOI 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NL
- - 125.0 - - - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIVIO! #DtVI01 1.00 0.00#DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
- - 125.0 - - - - 0.00 #DlVI01 #DlVlot #DlVI01 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #011/101 NL
- - 125.0 0 - 0.00 #DIVIOI #DIV/0! #DtVI0t 1.00 0.00 #DIVIO! 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
- - 125.0 0 0 - 0.00 #DIV/01 #DIVI01 #011/1Ot 1.00 0.00 #DlVI0l 1.000 #DIVIOI NI
45 125.0 5625 3160 1.51 0 0 0.049 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.804 0.344 0.00
Cnrradinns in SPT fMcxtif.pd from Skamninn 1Ol on I iind i,. Rniwt.nn on1 takiriu,
Factor . Equipment Variable I Term Correction
Overburden Pressure C
O.4cCNcr1.7
Energy Ratio Donut Hammer CE 0.5 to 1.0
Safety Hammer 0.7101.2
Automatic-Trip Donut-Type Hammer . 0.8 to 1.3
Borehole Diameter 2.5 inch 1o4.5inch . Ce 1.0
6 inch 1.05
8inch . 1.15
Rod length 10 feet to 13 feet Ca 0.75
13 feet to 19.8 feet 0.85
19.8 feet 1o33 feet 0.95
33 feet 1098feet 1.00
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs 1.00
Sampler without liners 1.1 101.3
Notes:
For (N,),>30, CRR is reported as NL (non-liquefiable)
Above ground water table, factor of safety is reported as NI
Magnitude Scaling (Idriss. revised
MSF=10JI7.52.w
Chinese Building Code Criteria
Percent finer than 0.005 mm <=15%
Liquid Limit, II <= 35%
Natural Water Content ) 0.91-1-
Soil which satisfy all three criteria are judged vulnerable to liquefaction
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Corrections to Measured Prooerties
Decrease fines content by 5%
Increase liquid limit byl%
Increase water content by 2%
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION
Based on Tokimatsu and Seed 1987
B-6 (A-14-006)
Depth to
Top
of Layer
(ft)
Depth to
Bottom
of Layer
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Cyclical
Stress
CSR
SPT Clean
Sands
(N1)6
Volumetric
Strain, %
Layer
Settlemen
(inches)
0 _5 - 5 0.238 22 0.4 0.2
5 10 5 0.304 124 0.0
10 _15 5 0.341 180 0.0
15 20. 5 0.361 181 0.0
20 25 5 #DIVIO! #DIV/0' 0.0
25 30 5 #DIV/0! #DIVIO! 0.0
30 35 5 #DIV/0' #DIVIO' 0.0
35 . 40 5 #DIVIO! #DIV/01 0.0
40 45 5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.0
45 0 -45 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.0
0 0 0 0.000 0 0.0
Total 0.2
Volumetric Strain, %
0.6
0.5
0.4
C,, 0.3
0
0.2
0.1
0
o 5 4 3 2 I 0.5
1 0,2
0.1
I
10 20 30 40 50
N1160 Adj. for Fines (Blows/Ft)
000
M814
me = 712
it
QJ7fA?•/Y/~7%JV)9..NlJIflIl
E 1111k
a U)
--
1.
.;. ..L.
o
..LEGEND.
k1 Yield Acceleration
twm Mwtlrnum Acceleration or Maximum Averoqe Acceleration
u . Permanent Dieplocoment (cm)
U, Moment MaOnitud3 i
0.101 1 I.. I :...._........
0_0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 10.7 0.8 io.9 1.0
/k 1'
V 0,13P
0.13 - O•?- - 0.2. .:I.•.I• - q.O-JI3 3.51
0 bZ 0. O.3 -
)OO 0.3f O.Lj.21 0.1(0 - 1.10
_J .3O 93:J. o.gl 0.-1 - I. •0.o&' -
150 0.3.2.- a.3 T,. 0."
I c.
4 0 B
0 E thWtd - 5
Po - 25%
2. 5 9 -aspecMa
- S. La Mq. aos
- Fj c 45%
T -
- A-6 MOMCO-0 20%
? -
r
____
B. 1'a*U. - 6013
s. - 15%
g40,, Pp
AAaacxoEr 7 I
a
0
Etbcfo C.wv. 5g,,4 5'TC.ar,,cC.od Wfacag,,. (P4 )60
Fig. 14- Undrained Residual Strength. Sr. versus Euivalerit Clean
Sand SPT Corrected 51owcount S'ased on Field Case &tuthes
PIIShCd by Seed (197) arid by 'seed & Harder (1990)
Idriss, August 1998. "Report of Principal Conclusions and Assignments for Further Consensus Building." Notes
from NCEER-NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, 2nd meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Quarry Creek
07135-42-04
Lateral. Displacement
ra
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
—i)— Lower Bound
Upper Bound
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 +
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Setback (feet) -
Quarry Creek Bridge 07135-42-04A
Bearing Capacity Analysis
Ref 10: California Amendments to AASHTO LRFD BDS - Fourth Edition
Part I - Design with Spread Footing on Rock
Location: Foundation
A-Services Limit State Design FS 2.50 Ref = P10-59, Tab C10.6.2.6.1-1 If bearing resistance, q 20 ksf Aliowa q0 (Set) 8 ksf
B-Strength Limit State Design cpb = 0.45 Ref = P10-32A, Footing on rock If bearing resistance, q 20 ksf qR q0 (Str) - 9 ksf
C-Extreme Event Limit State Design 9b = 1.00 if bearing resistance, qr, 20 ksf qFt q0 (Ext) 20 ksf
Part It.- Design with Spread Footing on Dense Soil - Strength Limit State Design - Theoretical Estimation
A-Services Limit State Design FS 2.50 Ref = - if bearing resistance, q ksf Aliowa q'0 (Ser) ksf
B-Strength Limit State Design qb = 0.45 Ref = P10-32A, Tab 10.55.2.2-1 if bearing resistance, q kst q, q0 (Str) ksf
C-Extreme Event Limit State Design 'Pb = 1.00 . if bearing resistance, q ksf qR q0 (Ext) ksf
(1) Check Pier 3 on weathered Salto Intrusive
qR = 9b q, Factored Resistance (1210-60 to P10-72A)
qn = c N Sc IC + y DI Nq Sq d i C, + 0.5y B Ny sy Py C,, (ignore inclined loading 1, iyiq)
Sc = 1 + (B/L)(NdNc) ($,> 0, Tab 10.6.31.2a-3, P10-64)
Sq = 1 + (B/L) tan $, ($>0, Tab 10.6.31.2a-3, P10-64)
= 1 -0.4 (B/L) (4>0, Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-3, P10-64)
1.0 (D>1.5B+Df, Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-2, P10-64)
1.0 (D>1.5B+Dt, Tab 10.6.31.2a-2, P10-64)
dq 1.00 ($ = 32-34, Tab 10.6.31.2a-4, P10-65)
C
- ()
7
(kcf)
B'
(ft)
L'
(ft)
Nc
-
Nq
-
N,
-
c
(ksf)
D,
Jj
Sc Sq
-
S7
-
C
-
C
-
d
-
q
(ksf)
LRFD q,
(ksf)
FS Gall
ksf
Note Std.
Plan
Vet.
A 43 0.12 10.00 46.00 105.1 99.0 186.5 0.1 4.00 1.20 1.20 0.91 1.0 1.0 1.0 23.5 -- -- 2.5 9.4 g'0 (Set)
B 43 0.12 10.00 4600 105.1 99.0 186.5 0.1 4.00 1.20 1.20 0.91 1.0 1.0 1.0 23.5 0.45 10.6 -- q. (Str)
C 43 0.12 10040010190 1865 0 4M0 120 1.2001 tO t0t0235 100 23.5 -- q. (Ext)
NOW NC, Nq, ana N, easee on tab ,o.e..i 2a-i (-1O-e4) Recommended
Quarry Pier 3 and Abut 4Quany Pier 3-Abut 4 (yw) 1 of 4
(2) Check Abut 4 on weathered Salto Intrusive
qA = ç qn Factored Resistance (P10-60 to P10-72A)
= C N.S. Ic + D1 Nq 5q dq ig C + 0.5y B Ny sy iy C (Ignore inclined loading IC i iq)
s = 1 + (B/L)(N(N) (0>0, Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-3. P10-64)
= 1 +(8/L) tan $ (>0, Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-3, P10-64)
s,= 1 - 0.4 (B/L) ($,>0. Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-3, P10-64)
CWQ = 1.0 (D >1.58+Df, Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-2, P10-64)
CWY 1.0 (D>1.5B+Df. Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-2, P10-64)
d.= 1.00 (, =32340, Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-4, P10-65)
- ()
y
(kcf)
B
jft
L
(ft)
N
_j. T Nq N1
-
c
(ksf)
IN
J
Sc Sq S7 Cwq C 1 dq q LRFD qR
(ksf)
FS
-
Qall
ksf
Note Std
Plan
Var.
A 43 0.12 8.00 46.00 105.11 99.0 186.5 0.1 4.001 1.16 1.16 0.93 1.0 1.0 1.0 23.2 - -- 2.5 9.3 q0 (Ser)
B 43 0.12 8.00 400 1051 990 1865 01 400 1.16 1.16 03 1.0 tO 0 22 0.45 10.4 - gStr
C 43 0.12 8.00 46.00 105.1 99.0 186.5 0.1 4.00 1.16 1.16 0.93 1.0 1.0 1.0.23.2 1.00 23.2 -- q0 (Ext)
Note: Nc, Nq, and N. based on Tab 10.6.3.1.2a-1 (P10.64) Recommended
Quarry Pier 3 and Abut 40uarry Pier 3-Abut 4 (yw) 2 of 4
'leWe 10.55.2.2-INkaseseftIMC45 Factors for eotechn last l Nkazimsturace of Shallow Pou imam *ian.s at the Str.nth
Limit State.
R.e'ise as foIla's:
T'.tom I rial cs Istanee letrirminntion Resistance Factor
__________ 73oar1 ng R.opintoneo in omorcssin
-
p,.
-
ThcretLcoi method (A.i,i,yfr,kli at erl.. 200/), in o4a- cohesive
Is
0.50
Theoretical method M (,,,t/è*1, 1.. 2001) d g C'P . in sand. using 0.50 'Tliearetioal method (MarnJ/c#, at oF., 200/1. in sand, using .S/7' 0.45
Semi-empirical methods (Al ,hof /9573. all soils 0.45
?'ootings or rock 0.45 Plate L.oad 'l'ost 0.55
Sliding
Precast concrete placed on sand 0.90
Cast- in-Place Cøncrotc on sand 0.80
Cast-In-Place or precast Concrete on Clay 0.85
Soil an saIl 0.90 PassI,e earth pressure ccrnpcnertt of slid I rig resistance 0.50
ocembor 2008
ScrzaN 10* PaUPiAr1Ne 10-59
'Table 4CIO.0.2.6.1-1 Pr'caamptisc Beating Itasts,Cmusco for Spread Panting Foituclations at the Service limit State lbdtodlfled after LI..S. I3epartmant of the rfavy (194.2).
Bearing R.e Bt5nco (kaf)
Itecommended 'Type of Besriag Material Consistency in Place rdiasxl' g.ange or tj.0
Massive crystalline igneous ad metamorphic rook: 'Very taw-d. sound rock 120-200 160
granite. d.iorite, basalt. guciss. thoroughly cemented
c*ongiomerat. (sound cenditton allows minor
cracks)
Foliated metamorphic rock: slate. schitt (sound Itord sound reck 60-60 70 ec,nidtiion allows inor crooks) Sedimental), rock: herd cemented shale.. siitsteno. Itard sound rock 30-50 40
sandstone. limcptone without ca,,ities
Weathered or broken bedrock of any kind, except Medium hard rock 16-24 20
highly argillaceous rook (shale) Compaction shaLe or other highly argilteceous rocic Medium hard rock 16-24 20
in eourid condition
Well-graded mixture of fine- arid caarse-gra&ncd 'Very den.e 16-24 20
soil: glacial till. hurdpen. boulder clay
. S)
92.-81F, Ora'el, gravel-sand mixture. boulder-gravel 'Vary dense 12-20 14
mixtures (OW, OP. SW. SF) Medium dense to dense 8-14 10
__________________________________________ loose 4-12 6 Coarse to medium sand, and with Little gra'el (SW. 'Very dense 8-12 8
SF) Medium dense to denSe 4-8 6
L.00sa 2.-6 3
Fine to medium sand. siLt), or claycy medium to 'Very dense 6-10 6 course sand (SW. SM. S) Medium dense to dense 4-8 5
X~ooipe 2-4 3
Pine .arttl. silty or oiayey medium to fine sand (SA'. 'Very dense 6-10 6 SM, S) Medium dense to dense 4-8 S
L.00ci 2-4 3 Ftomogencot*A inorganic clay. sandy or silty clay, 'Very dense e-12 8 (L.. alt) Medium dense to dense 2-6 4 Loose 1-2 1 Inorganic slit. •sndy, or clnyey silt. varved silt-clay- 'Very stiff' to hard 4—B 6
One sand (M.C_. ?flt) Mcdium stiff' to stiff' 2-6 3
_________________________________________________________________________ Soft 1-2 1
Quarry Pier 3 and Abut 4Quarry Pier 3-Abut 4 (yw) 3 of 4
Friction Angle.
(de g.) D,/B a.
.20
2 1.30 32 1.35
8 1.40
1.20
2 1.25 37 4 1.30
8 1.35
1.15
42
2 1.20
1.25
8 1.30
The depth correction factor should be used only when
the soils above the footing bearing elevation are as
competent as the soils beneath the footing level;
otherwise, the depth correction factor should be taken as
1.0. Linear interpolations may be made for friction
angles in between those values shown in Table 4.
Table 10.6.3.1.2a-4 Depth Correction Factor
Ti, II.ji.aep Bear Cuq.. W.Ea IV t I9Mi. (L*aw. ?dl ., (P 191.
M
. ...•__. 4r
0 £14 *.0 0.11 I -iii-.0 Il
- i a._ - 0.2 iS -- 10.7
- -.,. - ________ 2J - 11.9 4 A_.- 1.4 411 23* 13 - 44 S j US _ 35$ 14. Mi 6 - 13 04 29 6.4 i 114
106 - ).Y j 1.0 25 12 13MA
-_II Ii 14 34 42Z ______ 4J .J?......... '. _)•° _____ .____4fi : - -a-- _______
....JI_ 11.41 39 3,7 4K 74.0
3. -U.) 4a -- 3.. 40 I IOiI -44 .13J_ 5.) 4.4 41 ____ 71.0 4.7 4 93_7
_3L _____
all
45.4 5.1 -
- HId " 13
!! .- ' ' '.
1•. I4A.3I.)..2 e'_ C, 4 C. 1SI V5
a, C. CI!Y]
T I&3.i Js3 ShWOWWWWXtia Viss's V. a_.,
th, p or,g,sv 144 a dIpIb 1w Hiss 1.5 isnis t ig wih ø$ew tilt kis his. H,s . el,eM The -:
l daaá4 be wd is dwSL
-4io 1--FRrIqftP A.. _ Te là,,) W T 4j S.e Tatli,,)
2110010 Fuie (50 ....L 1.0
.4.- '81 I j
Quarry Pier 3 and Abut 40uarry Pier 3-Abut 4 (yw) 4 of 4
S Abut 1, 42" CIDH with 30" Rock Socket
100
go
80
70
-J U,
g60
50
40
30
20
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00
Axial Resistance, kips
U Nominal Resistance U LRFD Factored (f 0.7)
WSD Factored FS-2.0 Nominal Compression 690 kips
Rock Socket-lQuarry Abut 1 Rev 08-20-14(yw) 5 of 5
Pier 2, 60" CIDH with 48" Rock Socket
.90
80
70
60
40
30
20
101 I I I I I I I I I
0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00 4000.00 4500.00 5000.00
Axial Resistance, kips
U Nominal Resistance • LRFD Factored (f = 0.7)
WSD Factored FS = 2.0 Nominal Compression 2190 kips
Rock Socket-iQuarry Pier 2 Rev 08-20-14(yw) 5015